ReviewFrontiers in psychology2020
Statements About the Pervasiveness of Behavior Require Data About the Pervasiveness of Behavior.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Psychoeducational Support Group Intervention for People Who Have Attempted Suicide: An Open Trial with Promising Preliminary Findings.Community mental health journal · 2022Trial
- Managing Worrying About Worrying with Metacognitive Restructuring Versus Metacognitive Defusion.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A tutorial for software options to aid in assessing functional relations in single-case experimental designs.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Characterizing the repeatability of cardiovascular responses to hypoxic apneas in adults.Physiological reports · 2025Article
- Situated Psychology: A Sketch.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2025Article
- Statistics is not measurement: The inbuilt semantics of psychometric scales and language-based models obscures crucial epistemic differences.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Psychology's Questionable Research Fundamentals (QRFs): Key problems in quantitative psychology and psychological measurement beyond Questionable Research Practices (QRPs).Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
- Capturing the Heterogeneity of Word Learners by Analyzing Persons.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- What ergodicity means for you.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2024Review
- The WACDT, a modern vigilance task for network defense.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2023Article
- Intentional spatial coding of responses under multiple action effect situations.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Rating scales institutionalise a network of logical errors and conceptual problems in research practices: A rigorous analysis showing ways to tackle psychology's crises.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
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
Despite recent close attention to issues related to the reliability of psychological research (e.g., the replication crisis), issues of the validity of this research have not been considered to the same extent. This paper highlights an issue that calls into question the validity of the common research practice of studying samples of individuals, and using sample-based statistics to infer generalizations that are applied not only to the parent population, but to individuals. The lack of ergodicity in human data means that such generalizations are not justified. This problem is illustrated with respect to two common scenarios in psychological research that raise questions for the sorts of theories that are typically proposed to explain human behavior and cognition. The paper presents a method of data analysis that requires closer attention to the range of behaviors exhibited by individuals in our research to determine the pervasiveness of effects observed in sample data. Such an approach to data analysis will produce results that are more in tune with the types of generalizations typical in reports of psychological research than mainstream analysis methods.
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.