Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40993332›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2025

Experimenter evidence unmasking as a confound in optional stopping.

Renata Sadibolova, Devin B Terhune

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Renata SadibolovaDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Devin B TerhuneDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. devin.terhune@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6792-4975

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optional stopping refers to the practice of repeatedly performing a statistical analysis on a dataset as new data are collected until a pre-specified decision criterion is reached. This procedure is often adopted because of its effectiveness in optimizing data collection. Discussions of optional stopping to date have primarily centred around statistical issues, with relatively little consideration of any methodological implications of this procedure. Building on recent work drawing attention to methodological biases arising from the use of optional stopping, we highlight experimenter awareness of the current evidence state during data collection (experimenter evidence unmasking) as a salient methodological confound of optional stopping. We argue that experimenter evidence unmasking has the potential to influence an experimenter to implicitly or explicitly modify their behaviour in ways that can reduce the internal validity of an experiment. We conclude by offering recommendations for circumventing this confound and for the transparent reporting of experimenter evidence masking procedures.

Indexed as

Data CollectionResearch DesignData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansExperimenter blindingExperimenter effectsInternal validityOptional stopping

Identifiers

PMID40993332
PMCPMC12460446

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.