ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Experimenter evidence unmasking as a confound in optional stopping.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.