Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41727256›Full record

ArticleEurope's journal of psychology2025

In Search of the Lost Interaction: A Theoretical and Methodological Framework for Researching Interactions.

Geoffrey Schweizer, Maximilian Köppel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Europe's journal of psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Geoffrey SchweizerDepartment of Sport and Exercise Psychology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Maximilian KöppelDepartment of Medical Oncology, National Center for Tumor Diseases, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We suggest that psychological research into interaction effects might benefit from analyzing potential interactions from the perspective of the Positive Predictive Value (PPV). The PPV denotes the post-study probability that a claimed effect is true, based on the pre-study probability that said effect exists, the power of the respective test and the significance level used for testing. We use the PPV in order to propose a framework structuring potential interaction effects based on their (theoretical) plausibility and their shape. Specifically, the position of a hypothesized interaction in the proposed framework may inform sample-size planning and the choice of alpha levels prior to a study; and it may inform confidence into results after a study. Finally, we present a heuristic approach for planning research on interactions based on R (the pre-study probability that an effect exists), the PPV (the post-study probability that a claimed effect is true) and α (the significance level used for significance testing). In doing so, we aim to provide a nuanced view on the feasibility of investigating into interactional hypotheses, a view that is critical where needed but that at the same time does not discourage research on interactions.

Indexed as

pattern of meanspositive predictive valuepowerprior probabilityreplicability

Identifiers

PMID41727256
PMCPMC12923185

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.