Stereotype threat effects on Italian girls' mathematics performance: A failure to replicate.

Many studies have found that males, on average, perform better than females in mathematics, although the size of this gender gap is small and varies considerably across countries. Stereotype threat has been proposed as a principal cause of this gender gap. From this perspective, females' performance is affected by fear of confirming a negative stereotype about females' mathematical ability and this stereotype can be activated by an experimental manipulation that reminds females of the stereotype. Yet, evidence of a stereotype threat effect on mathematics performance in childhood and adolescence has been mixed. The present study replicated a highly cited study of stereotype threat among Italian adolescents with a much larger sample of Italian ninth grade (89 male, 75 female, mean age = 14.2) and eleventh grade (84 male, 80 female, mean age = 16.2) public high school students. Performance in tests administered both before and after the experimental manipulations were analyzed with a series of logistic mixed-effects models. Model comparisons confirmed that males performed better than females, but the probability of a stereotype threat effect was infinitesimal. We conclude that Italian adolescent gender differences in mathematics may not be explained by stereotype threat effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Data and supplemental material of the paper "Effectiveness of digital-based interventions for children with mathematical learning difficulties: A meta-analysis".

Data and supplement material of the article "Effectiveness of digital-based interventions for children with mathematical learning difficulties: A meta-analysis" (Benavides-Varela et al.) [1] are presented. Data were collected from studies included in the meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of digital-based interventions for children with mathematical learning difficulties compared to control conditions in group-designed randomized controlled trials. Literature search, inclusion criteria and coding procedure are described. PRISMA flow-chart is reported to summarize the literature search and coding of all the relevant characteristics of the primary studies is made available. This allows other researchers to easily access to the information needed to evaluate the studies and to use these data in future meta-analyses. However, researchers are highly recommended to refer to the original papers in order to check studies suitability to their own criteria. Moreover, in the supplemental material all the information needed to reproduce the meta-analysis results is reported together with the R code syntax. Data and supplemental material are available online (https://osf.io/ajdnv/).

Proprioceptive accuracy in Immersive Virtual Reality: A developmental perspective.

Proprioceptive development relies on a variety of sensory inputs, among which vision is hugely dominant. Focusing on the developmental trajectory underpinning the integration of vision and proprioception, the present research explores how this integration is involved in interactions with Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR) by examining how proprioceptive accuracy is affected by Age, Perception, and Environment. Individuals from 4 to 43 years old completed a self-turning task which asked them to manually return to a previous location with different sensory modalities available in both IVR and reality. Results were interpreted from an exploratory perspective using Bayesian model comparison analysis, which allows the phenomena to be described using probabilistic statements rather than simplified reject/not-reject decisions. The most plausible model showed that 4-8-year-old children can generally be expected to make more proprioceptive errors than older children and adults. Across age groups, proprioceptive accuracy is higher when vision is available, and is disrupted in the visual environment provided by the IVR headset. We can conclude that proprioceptive accuracy mostly develops during the first eight years of life and that it relies largely on vision. Moreover, our findings indicate that this proprioceptive accuracy can be disrupted by the use of an IVR headset.

Enhancing Statistical Inference in Psychological Research via Prospective and Retrospective Design Analysis.

In the past two decades, psychological science has experienced an unprecedented replicability crisis, which has uncovered several issues. Among others, the use and misuse of statistical inference plays a key role in this crisis. Indeed, statistical inference is too often viewed as an isolated procedure limited to the analysis of data that have already been collected. Instead, statistical reasoning is necessary both at the planning stage and when interpreting the results of a research project. Based on these considerations, we build on and further develop an idea proposed by Gelman and Carlin (2014) termed "prospective and retrospective design analysis." Rather than focusing only on the statistical significance of a result and on the classical control of type I and type II errors, a comprehensive design analysis involves reasoning about what can be considered a plausible effect size. Furthermore, it introduces two relevant inferential risks: the exaggeration ratio or Type M error (i.e., the predictable average overestimation of an effect that emerges as statistically significant) and the sign error or Type S error (i.e., the risk that a statistically significant effect is estimated in the wrong direction). Another important aspect of design analysis is that it can be usefully carried out both in the planning phase of a study and for the evaluation of studies that have already been conducted, thus increasing researchers' awareness during all phases of a research project. To illustrate the benefits of a design analysis to the widest possible audience, we use a familiar example in psychology where the researcher is interested in analyzing the differences between two independent groups considering Cohen's d as an effect size measure. We examine the case in which the plausible effect size is formalized as a single value, and we propose a method in which uncertainty concerning the magnitude of the effect is formalized via probability distributions. Through several examples and an application to a real case study, we show that, even though a design analysis requires significant effort, it has the potential to contribute to planning more robust and replicable studies. Finally, future developments in the Bayesian framework are discussed.