An investigation of the prevalence of replication research in human factors

Human Factors

Volumn 52, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 586-595

  Jones, Keith S ^a   Derby, Paul L ^a   Schmidlin, Elizabeth A ^a  

^a TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

evidence; falsification; philosophy of science; replication research; science of human factors

Indexed keywords

EVIDENCE; FALSIFICATION; HUMAN FACTORS; PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE; REPLICATION RESEARCH;

CRIME; HUMAN ENGINEERING; ONTOLOGY;

RESEARCH;

ARTICLE; BIOENGINEERING; HUMAN; LITERATURE; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH;

HUMAN ENGINEERING; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 78649650526     PISSN: 00187208     EISSN: 15478181     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0018720810384394     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Bozarth, J.D., & Roberts, R.R. (1972). Signifying significant significance. American Psychologist, 27, 774-775.
2. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2 nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Dul, J., & Karwowski, W. (2003). An assessment system for rating scientific journals in the field of ergonomics and human factors. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Eramus Research Institute of Management.
4. Evanschitzky, H., Baumgarth, C., Hubbard, R., & Armstrong, J.S. (2007). Replication research's disturbing trend. Journal of Business Research, 60, 411-415.
5. Fleiss, J.L. (1981). Statistical methods of rates and proportions (2 nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
6. Gardner, W. (1995). On the reliability of sequential data: Measurement, meaning, and correction. In J. M. Gottman (Ed.), The analysis of change (pp. 339-359). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Gattei, S. (2009). Karl Popper's philosophy of science. New York, NY: Routledge.
8. Hendrick, C. (1990). Replications, strict replications, and conceptual replications: Are they important? In J. W. Neuliep (Ed.), Handbook of replication research in the behavioral and social sciences (pp. 41-49). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9. Hubbard, R., & Armstrong, J.S. (1994). Replications and extension in marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 223-248.
10. Hubbard, R., & Vetter, D.E. (1996). An empirical comparison of published replication research in accounting, economics, finance, management, and marketing. Journal of Business Research, 35, 153-164.
11. Hubbard, R., & Vetter, D.E. (1997). Journal prestige and the publication frequency of replication research in the finance literature. Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics, 36, 3-14.
12. Hubbard, R., Vetter, D.E., & Little, E.L. (1998). Replication in strategic management: Scientific testing for validity, generalizability, and usefulness. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 243-254.
13. Kelly, C.D. (2006). Replicating empirical research in behavioral ecology: How and why it should be done but rarely ever is. Quarterly Review of Biology, 81, 221-236.
14. Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes: Philosophical papers (Vol. 1). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
15. Landis, J., & Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
16. Lindsay, R.M., & Ehrenberg, A.S. (1993). The design of replicated studies. American Statistician, 47, 217-338.
17. Madden, C.S., Easley, R.W., & Dunn, M.G. (1995). How journal editors view replication research. Journal of Advertising, 24, 77-87.
18. Mahoney, M.J. (1985). Open exchange and epistemic process. American Psychologist, 40, 29-39.
19. McGrew, T., Alspector-Kelly, M., & Allhoff, F. (Eds.). (2009). Philosophy of science: A historical anthology. West Sussex, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
20. Miller, D. (1985). Popper selections. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21. Neuliep, J.W., & Crandall, R. (1990). Editorial bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 85-90.
22. Neuliep, J.W., & Crandall, R. (1993 a). Everyone was wrong: There are lots of replications out there. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 1-8.
23. Neuliep, J.W., & Crandall, R. (1993 b). Reviewer bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 21-29.
24. Peirce, C.S. (1935). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss, Eds., Vol. 6). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. Popper, C. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London, UK: Hutchinson.
26. Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641.
27. Rosenthal, R. (1993). Cumulating evidence. In G. Keren & C. Lewis (Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: Methodological issues (pp. 519-559). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Schmidt, S. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13, 90-100.
29. Smith, N.C. (1970). Replication studies: A neglected aspect of psychological research. American Psychologist, 25, 970-975.
30. Sterling, T.D. (1959). Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests of significance-or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54, 30-34.
31. Stock, W. (1994). Systematic coding for research synthesis. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 125-138). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
32. Thomson Reuters. (2008). Thomson Reuters master journal list. Retrieved from http://science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/
33. Tsang, E.W., & Kwan, K.-M. (1999). Replication and theory development in organizational science: A critical realist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24, 759-780.