ArticleRoyal Society open science2018
Estimating statistical power, posterior probability and publication bias of psychological research using the observed replication rate.
Article in Royal Society open science, 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled 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
- Improving research on developmental psychopathology with Registered Reports.Development and psychopathology · 2025Article
- Open Science Practices in Gambling Research Publications (2016-2019): A Scoping Review.Journal of gambling studies · 2023Article
- Article
- The new accounting for expected adjusted effect test (AEAE test) has higher positive predictive value than a zero-order significance test.BMC research notes · 2021Article
- Establishing a Scientific Consensus on the Cognitive Benefits of Physical Activity.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Article
- Is what is beautiful good and still more accurately understood? A replication and extension of Lorenzo et al. (2010).European journal of personalityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this paper, we show how Bayes' theorem can be used to better understand the implications of the 36% reproducibility rate of published psychological findings reported by the Open Science Collaboration. We demonstrate a method to assess publication bias and show that the observed reproducibility rate was not consistent with an unbiased literature. We estimate a plausible range for the prior probability of this body of research, suggesting expected statistical power in the original studies of 48-75%, producing (positive) findings that were expected to be true 41-62% of the time. Publication bias was large, assuming a literature with 90% positive findings, indicating that negative evidence was expected to have been observed 55-98 times before one negative result was published. These findings imply that even when studied associations are truly NULL, we expect the literature to be dominated by statistically significant findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.