When and why to replicate: As easy as 1, 2, 3?. Field, S. M., Hoekstra, R., Bringmann, L., & van Ravenzwaaij, D. Collabra Psychology, September, 2019. Publisher: University of California Press
When and why to replicate: As easy as 1, 2, 3? [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
The crisis of confidence in psychology has prompted vigorous and persistent debate in the scientific community concerning the veracity of the findings of psychological experiments. This discussion has led to changes in psychology’s approach to research, and several new initiatives have been developed, many with the aim of improving our findings. One key advancement is the marked increase in the number of replication studies conducted. We argue that while it is important to conduct replications as part of regular research protocol, it is neither efficient nor useful to replicate results at random. We recommend adopting a methodical approach toward the selection of replication targets to maximize the impact of the outcomes of those replications, and minimize waste of scarce resources. In the current study, we demonstrate how a Bayesian re–analysis of existing research findings followed by a simple qualitative assessment process can drive the selection of the best candidate article for replication. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
@article{field_when_2019,
	title = {When and why to replicate: {As} easy as 1, 2, 3?},
	volume = {5},
	issn = {2474-7394},
	url = {http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-ub.rug.nl/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2019-62887-001&site=ehost-live&scope=site},
	doi = {10.1525/collabra.218},
	abstract = {The crisis of confidence in psychology has prompted vigorous and persistent debate in the scientific community concerning the veracity of the findings of psychological experiments. This discussion has led to changes in psychology’s approach to research, and several new initiatives have been developed, many with the aim of improving our findings. One key advancement is the marked increase in the number of replication studies conducted. We argue that while it is important to conduct replications as part of regular research protocol, it is neither efficient nor useful to replicate results at random. We recommend adopting a methodical approach toward the selection of replication targets to maximize the impact of the outcomes of those replications, and minimize waste of scarce resources. In the current study, we demonstrate how a Bayesian re–analysis of existing research findings followed by a simple qualitative assessment process can drive the selection of the best candidate article for replication. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Collabra Psychology},
	author = {Field, Sarahanne M. and Hoekstra, Rink and Bringmann, Laura and van Ravenzwaaij, Don},
	month = sep,
	year = {2019},
	note = {Publisher: University of California Press},
	keywords = {Bayesian reanalysis, Behavioral Sciences, Experimental Replication, Psychology, psychological science, replication, transparency},
}

Downloads: 0