ArticlePsychological methods2019
Statistical analyses for studying replication: Meta-analytic perspectives.
Article in Psychological methods, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Psychotherapeutic, pharmacological and other active interventions from the NICE guideline for post-traumatic stress disorder with sleep disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Examining replicability in addictions research: How to assess and ways forward.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2022Pooled it
- Evaluation of replication success: A statistical perspective and extended analysis of the SCORE data.PloS one · 2026Article
- A scoping review on metrics to quantify reproducibility: a multitude of questions leads to a multitude of metrics.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- Quantifying and explaining heterogeneity in meta-analytic structural equation modeling: Methods and illustrations.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- The assessment of replicability using the sum ofRoyal Society open science · 2024Article
- On the bias of complete- and shifting-case meta-regressions with missing covariates.Research synthesis methods · 2022Article
- The case for formal methodology in scientific reform.Royal Society open science · 2021Article
- A Guide to Conducting a Meta-Analysis with Non-Independent Effect Sizes.Neuropsychology review · 2019Review
- Challenges and suggestions for defining replication "success" when effects may be heterogeneous: Comment on Hedges and Schauer (2019).Psychological methods · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Formal empirical assessments of replication have recently become more prominent in several areas of science, including psychology. These assessments have used different statistical approaches to determine if a finding has been replicated. The purpose of this article is to provide several alternative conceptual frameworks that lead to different statistical analyses to test hypotheses about replication. All of these analyses are based on statistical methods used in meta-analysis. The differences among the methods described involve whether the burden of proof is placed on replication or nonreplication, whether replication is exact or allows for a small amount of "negligible heterogeneity," and whether the studies observed are assumed to be fixed (constituting the entire body of relevant evidence) or are a sample from a universe of possibly relevant studies. The statistical power of each of these tests is computed and shown to be low in many cases, raising issues of the interpretability of tests for replication. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
30070547What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.