ArticlePeerJ2025
Robust statistical methods and the credibility movement of psychological science.
Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medical invalidation is associated with structural barriers in postacute immune mediated syndromes based on patient perspectives in Germany.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Article
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
The general linear model (GLM) is the most frequently applied family of statistical models in psychology. Within the GLM, the effects under study are estimated using the ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation. In certain situations, OLS produces parameter estimates that are unbiased and optimal (with least possible error) and hypothesis tests that retain the expected rate of false positives (Type I errors). This happens when (1) outliers and influential cases are absent, and (2) assumptions of linearity and additivity, spherical errors, and normal errors are met. This paper first provides a technical description of OLS and an overview of its statistical assumptions. We then discuss the methods commonly employed to detect and address violations of assumptions, and how the current application of these methods can compromise the reproducibility of findings by allowing too many data-driven decisions to be made as part of the data analytic pipeline. We briefly introduce several robust estimation methods-namely bootstrapping, heteroscedasticity-consistent standard errors,
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.