| 1. |
- Camerer, C. F., et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Nature Human Behaviour. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2397-3374. ; 2:9, s. 637-644
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Being able to replicate scientific findings is crucial for scientific progress1-15. We replicate 21 systematically selected experimental studies in the social sciences published in Nature and Science between 2010 and 201516-36. The replications follow analysis plans reviewed by the original authors and pre-registered prior to the replications. The replications are high powered, with sample sizes on average about five times higher than in the original studies. We find a significant effect in the same direction as the original study for 13 (62%) studies, and the effect size of the replications is on average about 50% of the original effect size. Replicability varies between 12 (57%) and 14 (67%) studies for complementary replicability indicators. Consistent with these results, the estimated truepositive rate is 67% in a Bayesian analysis. The relative effect size of true positives is estimated to be 71%, suggesting that both false positives and inflated effect sizes of true positives contribute to imperfect reproducibility. Furthermore, we find that peer beliefs of replicability are strongly related to replicability, suggesting that the research community could predict which results would replicate and that failures to replicate were not the result of chance alone.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ebersole, Charles R., et al.
(författare)
-
Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. - : Sage. - 2515-2467 .- 2515-2459. ; 3:3, s. 309-331
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3-9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276-3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Delta r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00-.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19-.50).
|
|
