ArticlePsychological methods2019
Consistency of effects is important in replication: Rejoinder to Mathur and VanderWeele (2019).
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- High replicability of newly discovered social-behavioural findings is achievable.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this rejoinder, we discuss Mathur and VanderWeele's response to our article, "Statistical Analyses for Studying Replication: Meta-Analytic Perspectives," which appears in this current issue. We attempt to clarify a point of confusion regarding the inclusion of an original study in an analysis of replication, and the potential impact of publication bias. We then discuss the methods used by Mathur and VanderWeele to conduct an alternative analysis of the Gambler's Fallacy example from our article. We highlight that there are some potential statistical and conceptual differences to their approach compared to what we propose in our article. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
31580142What 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.