Replication studies of critical findings from the peer literature: An introduction.

2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (12) ◽  
pp. 2007-2010
Author(s):  
William M. Bukowski ◽  
Wendy Troop-Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Replication Studies

Holding replication studies to mainstream standards of evidence

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duane T. Wegener ◽  
Leandre R. Fabrigar
Keyword(s):  
Replication Studies ◽  
Replication Research ◽  
Standards Of Evidence ◽  
Do So

AbstractReplications can make theoretical contributions, but are unlikely to do so if their findings are open to multiple interpretations (especially violations of psychometric invariance). Thus, just as studies demonstrating novel effects are often expected to empirically evaluate competing explanations, replications should be held to similar standards. Unfortunately, this is rarely done, thereby undermining the value of replication research.

Replication of Experiments Evaluating Impact of Psychological Distance on Moral Judgment

2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 223-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iris L. Žeželj ◽  
Biljana R. Jokić
Keyword(s):  
Moral Judgment ◽  
Social Distance ◽  
Psychological Distance ◽  
Temporal Distance ◽  
Construal Level ◽  
Systematic Effect ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Opposite Conclusion ◽  
Moral Transgressions ◽  
Replication Of Experiments

Eyal, Liberman, and Trope (2008) established that people judged moral transgressions more harshly and virtuous acts more positively when the acts were psychologically distant than close. In a series of conceptual and direct replications, Gong and Medin (2012) came to the opposite conclusion. Attempting to resolve these inconsistencies, we conducted four high-powered replication studies in which we varied temporal distance (Studies 1 and 3), social distance (Study 2) or construal level (Study 4), and registered their impact on moral judgment. We found no systematic effect of temporal distance, the effect of social distance consistent with Eyal et al., and the reversed effect of direct construal level manipulation, consistent with Gong and Medin. Possible explanations for the incompatible results are discussed.

Identification of and Correction for Publication Bias: Comment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda Kvarven ◽  
Eirik Strømland ◽  
Magnus Johannesson
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
False Positive ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
False Positive Rate ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Moderate Reduction ◽  
Positive Rate ◽  
Meta Analyses

Andrews & Kasy (2019) propose an approach for adjusting effect sizes in meta-analysis for publication bias. We use the Andrews-Kasy estimator to adjust the result of 15 meta-analyses and compare the adjusted results to 15 large-scale multiple labs replication studies estimating the same effects. The pre-registered replications provide precisely estimated effect sizes, which do not suffer from publication bias. The Andrews-Kasy approach leads to a moderate reduction of the inflated effect sizes in the meta-analyses. However, the approach still overestimates effect sizes by a factor of about two or more and has an estimated false positive rate of between 57% and 100%.

Why are replication studies so rarely published?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sneha Kulkarni
Keyword(s):  
Replication Studies

Dutch organization launches world’s first national fund for replication studies

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sneha Kulkarni
Keyword(s):  
Replication Studies

scholarly journals Informative value of referral letters from general practice for child and adolescent mental healthcare

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Aydin ◽  
M. R. Crone ◽  
B. M. Siebelink ◽  
M. E. Numans ◽  
R. R. J. M. Vermeiren ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Nodal Point ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
Child And Adolescent ◽  
Child And Adolescent Psychiatry ◽  
Discriminative Ability ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorders ◽  
Referral Letters ◽  
Made In

AbstractAlthough referral letters (RLs) form a nodal point in a patient’s care journey, little is known about their informative value in child and adolescent mental healthcare. To determine the informative value of RLs to child and adolescent psychiatry, we conducted a chart review in medical records of minors registered at specialized mental healthcare between January 2015 and December 2017 (The Netherlands). Symptoms indicated in RLs originating from general practice (N = 723) were coded and cross-tabulated with the best estimate clinical classifications made in psychiatry. Results revealed that over half of the minors in the sample were classified in concordance with at least one reason for referral. We found fair to excellent discriminative ability for indications made in RLs concerning the most common psychiatric classifications (95% CI AUC: 60.9–70.6 for anxiety disorders to 90.5–100.0 for eating disorders). Logistic regression analyses suggested no statistically significant effects of gender, age, severity or mental healthcare history, with the exception of age and attention deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD), as RLs better predicted ADHD with increasing age (OR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.03–1.27). Contextual problems, such as difficulties studying, problems with parents or being bullied were indicated frequently and associated with classifications in various disorder groups. To conclude, general practitioners’ RLs showed informative value, contrary to common beliefs. Replication studies are needed to reliably incorporate RLs into the diagnostic work-up.

scholarly journals Ultraviolet A Radiation and COVID‐19 Deaths in the USA with replication studies in England and Italy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Cherrie ◽  
T. Clemens ◽  
C. Colandrea ◽  
Z. Feng ◽  
D.J. Webb ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ultraviolet A ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
The Usa

The trees and the forest: Investigating variability surrounding an aggregate result

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 399-404
Author(s):  
Paul De Boeck ◽  
Michael L. DeKay ◽  
L. Robert Gore ◽  
Minjeong Jeon
Keyword(s):  
Control Theory ◽  
Paradigm Shift ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
The Common ◽  
Psychological Meaningfulness ◽  
Traditional Approaches ◽  
Exclusive Focus ◽  
Psychological Studies

We agree with Arocha that the common and exclusive focus on aggregate results of psychological studies creates problems. While a paradigm shift toward idiographic approaches or control theory might help, we argue that traditional approaches can accomplish more if measures of variability are taken seriously. We discuss three kinds of studies: within-person treatment studies, questionnaire-based studies, and replication studies. For each of these, we suggest ways to improve psychological meaningfulness by investigating variability surrounding aggregate results, without ending up in an either–or choice between aggregate results and separate, individual results.

A Systematic Review of Replicative Self-Determination Intervention Studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-39
Author(s):  
John L. Luckner ◽  
Rashida Banerjee ◽  
Sara Movahedazarhouligh ◽  
Kaitlyn Millen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Replication Studies ◽  
Research Designs ◽  
Replication Research ◽  
Quality Of Research

Current federal legislation emphasizes the use of programs, interventions, strategies, and activities that have been demonstrated through research to be effective. One way to increase the quantity and quality of research that guides practice is to conduct replication research. The purpose of this study was to undertake a systematic review of the replication research focused on self-determination conducted between 2007 and 2017. Using methods used by Cook and colleagues, we identified 80 intervention studies on topics related to self-determination, of which 31 were coded as replications. Intervention study trends, rate of replication studies, percentage of agreements between findings of original and replication studies, amount of author overlap, and types of research designs used are reported along with recommendations for future research.

scholarly journals Replication studies

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1410940 ◽  
Author(s):  
David McMillan
Keyword(s):  
Replication Studies
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document