ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Extending Lawson and Robins' (2021) guideline for the evaluation of jingle and jangle fallacies.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The existence of jingle fallacies (equally named constructs/measures that, in fact, assess different constructs) and jangle fallacies (differently named constructs/measures that, in fact, measure the same concept) jeopardizes psychological assessment, as both are associated with conceptual and assessment-related uncertainties. A guideline presented by Lawson and Robins Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25, 344-366, (2021) helps evaluate the intensity of respective fallacies. While the guideline is well elaborated, psychometric aspects regarding (dis)similarities of nomological networks require extensions and differentiations. I recommend two analytical advancements, namely (a) the derivation of correlation difference hypotheses for criteria with which the allegedly jingled (jangled) variables are assumed to be correlated at equal (different) levels and (b) procedures to derive cutoffs for the overall similarity of nomological networks based on the elemental approach (Kay & Arrow Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 16, e12662, 2022). Considering correlation difference tests, I further outline the importance of power analyses. These extensions help improve the evaluation of assumed jingle and jangle fallacies, arguably increasing the stability and reliability of research 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.