Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41048396›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2025

Robust statistical methods and the credibility movement of psychological science.

Martina Sladekova, Andy P Field

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Martina SladekovaSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, East Sussex, United Kingdom.
Andy P FieldSchool of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, East Sussex, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Models, StatisticalPsychologyData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansLeast-Squares AnalysisLinear ModelsReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignCredibility movementOrdinary least squares estimationResearcher degrees of freedomSources of biasStatistical assumptions

Identifiers

PMID41048396
PMCPMC12490515

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.