Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31903199›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2019

Research practices and statistical reporting quality in 250 economic psychology master's theses: a meta-research investigation.

Jerome Olsen, Johanna Mosen, Martin Voracek, Erich Kirchler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

4 authors.

Jerome OlsenFaculty of Psychology, Department of Applied Psychology: Work, Education and Economy, University of Vienna, Universitaetsstrasse 7, 1010 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-7812-7322
Johanna MosenFaculty of Psychology, Department of Applied Psychology: Work, Education and Economy, University of Vienna, Universitaetsstrasse 7, 1010 Vienna, Austria.
Martin VoracekFaculty of Psychology, Department of Basic Psychological Research and Research Methods, University of Vienna, Liebiggasse 5, 1010 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-6109-6155
Erich KirchlerFaculty of Psychology, Department of Applied Psychology: Work, Education and Economy, University of Vienna, Universitaetsstrasse 7, 1010 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-4731-1650

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The replicability of research findings has recently been disputed across multiple scientific disciplines. In constructive reaction, the research culture in psychology is facing fundamental changes, but investigations of research practices that led to these improvements have almost exclusively focused on academic researchers. By contrast, we investigated the statistical reporting quality and selected indicators of questionable research practices (QRPs) in psychology students' master's theses. In a total of 250 theses, we investigated utilization and magnitude of standardized effect sizes, along with statistical power, the consistency and completeness of reported results, and possible indications of

Indexed as

academic theseseffect sizep-valuequestionable research practicesstatistical powerstatistical reporting

Identifiers

PMID31903199
PMCPMC6936276

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.