RESUMEN
Replication-an important, uncommon, and misunderstood practice-is gaining appreciation in psychology. Achieving replicability is important for making research progress. If findings are not replicable, then prediction and theory development are stifled. If findings are replicable, then interrogation of their meaning and validity can advance knowledge. Assessing replicability can be productive for generating and testing hypotheses by actively confronting current understandings to identify weaknesses and spur innovation. For psychology, the 2010s might be characterized as a decade of active confrontation. Systematic and multi-site replication projects assessed current understandings and observed surprising failures to replicate many published findings. Replication efforts highlighted sociocultural challenges such as disincentives to conduct replications and a tendency to frame replication as a personal attack rather than a healthy scientific practice, and they raised awareness that replication contributes to self-correction. Nevertheless, innovation in doing and understanding replication and its cousins, reproducibility and robustness, has positioned psychology to improve research practices and accelerate progress.
Asunto(s)
Proyectos de Investigación , Humanos , Reproducibilidad de los ResultadosRESUMEN
The debate about whether replication studies should become mainstream is essentially driven by disagreements about their costs and benefits and the best ways to allocate limited resources. Determining when replications are worthwhile requires quantifying their expected utility. We argue that a formalized framework for such evaluations can be useful for both individual decision-making and collective discussions about replication.
Asunto(s)
Toma de Decisiones , Análisis Costo-BeneficioRESUMEN
For almost half a century, Paul Meehl educated psychologists about how the mindless use of null-hypothesis significance tests made research on theories in the social sciences basically uninterpretable. In response to the replication crisis, reforms in psychology have focused on formalizing procedures for testing hypotheses. These reforms were necessary and influential. However, as an unexpected consequence, psychological scientists have begun to realize that they may not be ready to test hypotheses. Forcing researchers to prematurely test hypotheses before they have established a sound "derivation chain" between test and theory is counterproductive. Instead, various nonconfirmatory research activities should be used to obtain the inputs necessary to make hypothesis tests informative. Before testing hypotheses, researchers should spend more time forming concepts, developing valid measures, establishing the causal relationships between concepts and the functional form of those relationships, and identifying boundary conditions and auxiliary assumptions. Providing these inputs should be recognized and incentivized as a crucial goal in itself. In this article, we discuss how shifting the focus to nonconfirmatory research can tie together many loose ends of psychology's reform movement and help us to develop strong, testable theories, as Paul Meehl urged.
Asunto(s)
Teoría Psicológica , Psicología/métodos , Causalidad , HumanosRESUMEN
Researchers often conclude an effect is absent when a null-hypothesis significance test yields a nonsignificant p value. However, it is neither logically nor statistically correct to conclude an effect is absent when a hypothesis test is not significant. We present two methods to evaluate the presence or absence of effects: Equivalence testing (based on frequentist statistics) and Bayes factors (based on Bayesian statistics). In four examples from the gerontology literature, we illustrate different ways to specify alternative models that can be used to reject the presence of a meaningful or predicted effect in hypothesis tests. We provide detailed explanations of how to calculate, report, and interpret Bayes factors and equivalence tests. We also discuss how to design informative studies that can provide support for a null model or for the absence of a meaningful effect. The conceptual differences between Bayes factors and equivalence tests are discussed, and we also note when and why they might lead to similar or different inferences in practice. It is important that researchers are able to falsify predictions or can quantify the support for predicted null effects. Bayes factors and equivalence tests provide useful statistical tools to improve inferences about null effects.
Asunto(s)
Envejecimiento/fisiología , Investigación Biomédica/métodos , Interpretación Estadística de Datos , Geriatría/métodos , Modelos Estadísticos , Psicología/métodos , Proyectos de Investigación , Adulto , Anciano , Teorema de Bayes , Dolor Crónico/fisiopatología , Regulación Emocional/fisiología , Humanos , Masculino , Memoria/fisiología , Personalidad/fisiologíaRESUMEN
Reid et al.[1] analysed data from 39 third-trimester fetuses, concluding that they showed a preferential head-orienting reaction towards lights projected through the uterine wall in a face-like arrangement, as opposed to an inverted triangle of dots. These results imply not only that assessment of visual-perceptive responses is possible in prenatal subjects, but also that a measurable preference for faces exists before birth. However, we have identified three substantial problems with Reid et al.'s [1] method and analyses, which we outline here.