Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28936638›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2018

Examining reproducibility in psychology: A hybrid method for combining a statistically significant original study and a replication.

Robbie C M van Aert, Marcel A L M van Assen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Is Psychological Science Self-Correcting? Citations Before and After Successful and Failed Replications.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2022
    Article
  5. CAS: corpus of clinical cases in French.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Robbie C M van AertDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands. r.c.m.vanaert@tilburguniversity.edu.
Marcel A L M van AssenDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, 5000 LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The unrealistically high rate of positive results within psychology has increased the attention to replication research. However, researchers who conduct a replication and want to statistically combine the results of their replication with a statistically significant original study encounter problems when using traditional meta-analysis techniques. The original study's effect size is most probably overestimated because it is statistically significant, and this bias is not taken into consideration in traditional meta-analysis. We have developed a hybrid method that does take the statistical significance of an original study into account and enables (a) accurate effect size estimation, (b) estimation of a confidence interval, and (c) testing of the null hypothesis of no effect. We analytically approximate the performance of the hybrid method and describe its statistical properties. By applying the hybrid method to data from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (Open Science Collaboration, 2015), we demonstrate that the conclusions based on the hybrid method are often in line with those of the replication, suggesting that many published psychological studies have smaller effect sizes than those reported in the original study, and that some effects may even be absent. We offer hands-on guidelines for how to statistically combine an original study and replication, and have developed a Web-based application ( https://rvanaert.shinyapps.io/hybrid ) for applying the hybrid method.

Indexed as

Data Interpretation, StatisticalMeta-Analysis as TopicPsychologyHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignMeta-analysisp-UniformReplicationReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID28936638
PMCPMC6096648

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.