RESUMEN
A typical empirical study involves choosing a sample, a research design, and an analysis path. Variation in such choices across studies leads to heterogeneity in results that introduce an additional layer of uncertainty, limiting the generalizability of published scientific findings. We provide a framework for studying heterogeneity in the social sciences and divide heterogeneity into population, design, and analytical heterogeneity. Our framework suggests that after accounting for heterogeneity, the probability that the tested hypothesis is true for the average population, design, and analysis path can be much lower than implied by nominal error rates of statistically significant individual studies. We estimate each type's heterogeneity from 70 multilab replication studies, 11 prospective meta-analyses of studies employing different experimental designs, and 5 multianalyst studies. In our data, population heterogeneity tends to be relatively small, whereas design and analytical heterogeneity are large. Our results should, however, be interpreted cautiously due to the limited number of studies and the large uncertainty in the heterogeneity estimates. We discuss several ways to parse and account for heterogeneity in the context of different methodologies.
RESUMEN
Many-analysts studies explore how well an empirical claim withstands plausible alternative analyses of the same dataset by multiple, independent analysis teams. Conclusions from these studies typically rely on a single outcome metric (e.g. effect size) provided by each analysis team. Although informative about the range of plausible effects in a dataset, a single effect size from each team does not provide a complete, nuanced understanding of how analysis choices are related to the outcome. We used the Delphi consensus technique with input from 37 experts to develop an 18-item subjective evidence evaluation survey (SEES) to evaluate how each analysis team views the methodological appropriateness of the research design and the strength of evidence for the hypothesis. We illustrate the usefulness of the SEES in providing richer evidence assessment with pilot data from a previous many-analysts study.