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.
Focus on the replication crisis has led to renewed efforts in psychology to retest important findings. [41] [176] A 2013 special edition of the journal Social Psychology focused on replication studies. [13] Standardization as well as (requiring) transparency of the used statistical and experimental methods have been proposed. [177]
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 when the study is replicated.
Solutions to address these challenges require important structural changes within research institutions and have important repercussions on researchers’ academic careers (see also #Challenges and future directions). The shift from a vertical model toward a more horizontal one was partly motivated by the replication crisis in psychology.
A replication attempt with a sample from a more diverse population, over 10 times larger than the original study, showed only half the effect of the original study. The replication suggested that economic background, rather than willpower, explained the other half. [6] [7] The predictive power of the marshmallow test was challenged in a 2020 study.
Example of direct replication and conceptual replication. There are two main types of replication in statistics. First, there is a type called “exact replication” (also called "direct replication"), which involves repeating the study as closely as possible to the original to see whether the original results can be precisely reproduced. [3]
"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" is a 2005 essay written by John Ioannidis, a professor at the Stanford School of Medicine, and published in PLOS Medicine. [1] It is considered foundational to the field of metascience .
In the past 20 years plus there has been an increase in cognitive neuroscience studies that focus on the concept of the self. [8] These studies were developed in hopes of determining if there are certain brain regions that can account for the encoding advantages involved in the self-reference effect.