Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38855427›Full record

ArticleJournal of mathematical psychology2023

Experiment-based calibration in psychology: Optimal design considerations.

Dominik R Bach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of mathematical psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

1 author.

Dominik R BachWellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging & Max-Planck UCL Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, University College London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Psychological theories are often formulated at the level of latent, not directly observable, variables. Empirical measurement of latent variables ought to be valid. Classical psychometric validity indices can be difficult to apply in experimental contexts. A complementary validity index, termed retrodictive validity, is the correlation of theory-derived predicted scores with actually measured scores, in specifically designed calibration experiments. In the current note, I analyse how calibration experiments can be designed to maximise the information garnered and specifically, how to minimise the sample variance of retrodictive validity estimators. First, I harness asymptotic limits to analytically derive different distribution features that impact on estimator variance. Then, I numerically simulate various distributions with combinations of feature values. This allows deriving recommendations for the distribution of predicted values, and for resource investment, in calibration experiments. Finally, I highlight cases in which a misspecified theory is particularly problematic.

Indexed as

CalibrationMeasurement accuracyMeasurement uncertaintyRetrodictive validity

Identifiers

PMID38855427
PMCPMC11158008

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.