The nonuse of psychological research at two federal agencies

Psychological Science

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 1-6

  Arkes, Hal R ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EVALUATION; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INFORMATION SERVICE; METHODOLOGY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PSYCHOLOGY; RESEARCH; STANDARD; STATISTICS; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

FINANCING, GOVERNMENT; HUMANS; INFORMATION SERVICES; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROGRAM EVALUATION; PSYCHOLOGY; RESEARCH;

EID: 0037268012     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9280.01410     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Armstrong, J.S. (1980). Unintelligible management research and academic prestige. Interfaces, 10, 80-86.
2. Campanario, J.M. (1995). On influential books and journal articles initially rejected because of negative referees' evaluations. Science Communication, 16, 304-325.
3. Cicchetti, D.V. (1991). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and giant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 119-186.
4. Cicchetti, D.V., Showalter, D., & Tyrer, P.J. (1985). The effect of number of rating scale categories on levels of interrater reliability: A Monte Carlo investigation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 31-36.
5. Cole, S., Cole, J.R., & Simon, G.A. (1981). Chance and consensus in peer review. Science, 214, 881-886.
6. Colman, A.M. (1982). Manuscript evaluation by journal referees and editors: Randomness or bias? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 205-206.
7. Dawes, R.M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P.E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668-1674.
8. Epstein, W.M. (1990). Confirmational response bias among social work journals. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 15, 9-38.
9. Garcia, J. (1981). Tilting at the paper mills of academe. American Psy-chologist, 36, 149-158.
10. Gottfredson, S.D. (1978). Evaluating psychological research reports: Dimensions, reliability, and correlates of quality judgments. American Psychologist, 33, 920-934.
11. Government Accounting Office. (1994). Peer review: Reforms needed to ensure fairness in federal agency grant selection (Rep. No. GAO/PEMD-94-1). Washington, DC: Author.
12. Kaplan, R.M., & Saccuzzo, D.P. (1997). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues (4th ed.). Pacific Grove. CA: Brooks/Cole.
13. Klahr, D. (1985). Insiders, outsiders, and efficiency in a National Science Foundation panel. American Psychologist, 40, 148-154.
14. Koehler, J.J. (1993). The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 28-55.
15. Landy, F.J., & Farr, J.L. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107.
16. Lloyd, M.E. (1990). Gender factors in reviewer recommendations for manuscript publication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 539-543.
17. Mahoney, M.J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 161-175.
18. McCauley, C. (1991). Selection of National Science Foundation graduate fellows. American Psychologist, 46, 1287-1291.
19. Peters, D.P., & Ceci, S.J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles submitted again. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 187-255.
20. Von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
21. Wade, T.C., & Baker, T.B. (1977). Opinions and use of psychological tests: A survey of clinical psychologists. American Psychologist, 32, 874-882.
22. Watson, J.D. (1968). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. New York: New American Library.
23. Wrightsman, L.S. (1999). Judicial decision making: Is psychology relevant? New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.