| 1. |
- Benjamin, Daniel J., et al.
(författare)
-
Redefine statistical significance
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Nature Human Behaviour. - : Nature Research (part of Springer Nature). - 2397-3374. ; 2:1, s. 6-10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 2. |
- Pfeiffer, Thomas, et al.
(författare)
-
Predicting the replicability of social and behavioural science claims in a crisis: The COVID-19 Preprint Replication Project
- 2023
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Replications are important for assessing the reliability of published findings. However, they are costly, and it is infeasible to replicate everything. Accurate, fast, lower-cost alternatives such as eliciting predictions could accelerate assessment for rapid policy implementation in a crisis. We elicited judgments from participants on 100 claims from preprints about an emerging area of research (COVID-19 pandemic) using an interactive structured elicitation protocol, and we conducted 29 new high-powered replications. After interacting with their peers, participant groups with lower task expertise (‘beginners’) updated their estimates and confidence in their judgements significantly more than groups with greater task expertise (‘experienced’). For experienced individuals, the average accuracy was 0.57 (95% CI: [0.53, 0.61]) after interaction, and they correctly classified 61% of claims; beginners’ average accuracy was 0.58 (95% CI: [0.54, 0.62]), correctly classifying 69% of claims. The difference in accuracy between groups was not statistically significant, and their judgments on the full set of claims were correlated (r=.48). These results suggest that both beginners and more experienced participants using a structured process have some ability to make better-than-chance predictions about the reliability of ‘fast science’ under conditions of high uncertainty. However, given the importance of such assessments for making evidence-based critical decisions in a crisis, more research is required to understand who the right experts in forecasting replicability are and how their judgements ought to be elicited.
|
|
| 3. |
- Schoenbrodt, Felix D., et al.
(författare)
-
Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Annual Review of Psychology. - : Annual Reviews. - 1545-2085 .- 0066-4308. ; 73, s. 719-748
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Replication mdash an important, uncommon, and misunderstood practice mdash is gaining appreciation in psychology. Achieving replicability is important for making research progress. If findings are not replicable, then prediction and theory development are stifled. If findings are replicable, then interrogation of their meaning and validity can advance knowledge. Assessing replicability can be productive for generating and testing hypotheses by actively confronting current understandings to identify weaknesses and spur innovation. For psychology, the 2010s might be characterized as a decade of active confrontation. Systematic and multi-site replication projects assessed current understandings and observed surprising failures to replicate many published findings. Replication efforts highlighted sociocultural challenges such as disincentives to conduct replications and a tendency to frame replication as a personal attack rather than a healthy scientific practice, and they raised awareness that replication contributes to self-correction. Nevertheless, innovation in doing and understanding replication and its cousins, reproducibility and robustness, has positioned psychology to improve research practices and accelerate progress. © 2022 Annual Reviews Inc.. All rights reserved.
|
|
