Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The authors emphasized that the findings reflect a problem that affects all of science and not just psychology, and that there is room to improve reproducibility in psychology. In 2021, the project showed that of 193 experiments from 53 top papers about cancer published between 2010 and 2012, only 50 experiments from 23 papers could be replicated.
The same paper examined the reproducibility rates and effect sizes by journal and discipline. Study replication rates were 23% for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48% for Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and 38% for Psychological Science. Studies in the field of cognitive psychology had a ...
In 2011, Nosek and his collaborators set up the Reproducibility Project, with the aim of trying to replicate the results of 100 psychological experiments published in respected journals in 2008. [4] In 2015, their results were published in Science , and found that only 36 out of the 100 replications showed statistically significant results ...
The current reproducibility aspect of the project is a crowdsourced empirical investigation of the reproducibility of a variety of studies from psychological literature, sampling from three major journals: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Psychological Science, and Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition ...
Reproducibility, closely related to replicability and repeatability, is a major principle underpinning the scientific method. For the findings of a study to be reproducible means that results obtained by an experiment or an observational study or in a statistical analysis of a data set should be achieved again with a high degree of reliability ...
In 2015, the Reproducibility Project: Psychology attempted to reproduced 100 studies from three top psychology journals (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and Psychological Science): while nearly all paper had reproducible effects, it was found that only 36% of the ...
However, this argument is often inappropriate for psychological measurement, because it is often impossible to consider the second administration of a test a parallel measure to the first. [8] The second administration of a psychological test might yield systematically different scores than the first administration due to the following reasons: [8]
ReScience C was created in 2015 by Nicolas Rougier and Konrad Hinsen in the context of the replication crisis of the early 2010s, in which concern about difficulty in replicating (different data or details of method) or reproducing (same data, same method) peer-reviewed, published research papers was widely discussed. [4]