Ethical Issues and Guidelines for Conducting Data Analysis in Psychological Research

Ethics and Behavior

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 3-15

  Wasserman, Rachel ^a  

^a LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

data analysis; ethics; guidelines; research

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873176384     PISSN: 10508422     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2012.728472     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. American Psychological Association. 2010. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct, Washington, DC: Author.
2. American Psychological Association. (2012). About APA. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/index.aspx
3. Carrig, M. M. and Hoyle, R. H. 2011. "Measurement choices: Reliability, validity, and generalizability". In Handbook of ethics in quantitative methodology, Edited by: Panter, A. T. and Sterba, S. K. 127-158. New York, NY: Routledge Academic. &In&Eds.pp.
4. Committee on Professional Ethics. (1999). Ethical guidelines for statistical practice. Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/about/ethicalguidelines.cfm
5. De Vries, R., Anderson, M. S. and Martinson, B. C. 2006. Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1: 43-50.
6. Gardenier, J. S. 2003. Best statistical practices to promote research integrity. Professional Ethics Report, 16: 1-3.
7. Gardenier, J. S. 2011. "Ethics in quantitative professional practice". In Handbook of ethics in quantitative methodology, Edited by: Panter, A. T. and Sterba, S. K. 15-36. New York, NY: Routledge Academic. In&Eds.pp.
8. Gardenier, J. S. and Resnik, D. B. 2002. The misuse of statistics: Concepts, tools, and research agenda. Accountability in Research, 9: 64-74.
9. Graham, J. M. (2001, March). The ethical use of statistical analyses in psychological research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Division 17 (Counseling Psychology) of the American Psychological Association, Houston, TX. Paper retrieved from http://myweb.facstaff.wwu.edu/~graham7/articles/Div17StatEthics.pdf
10. Grisso, T., Baldwin, E., Blanck, P. D., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Schooler, N. R. and Thompson, T. 1991. Standards in research: APA's mechanism for monitoring the challenges. American Psychologist, 46: 758-766.
11. Hubert, L. and Wainer, H. 2011. "A statistical guide for the ethically perplexed". In Handbook of ethics in quantitative methodology, Edited by: Panter, A. T. and Sterba, S. K. 61-126. New York, NY: Routledge Academic. &In&Eds.pp.
12. John, L. K., Loewenstein, G. and Prelec, D. 2012. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth-telling. Psychological Science, 23: 524-532. &
13. Keith-Spiegel, P., Sieber, J. E., & Koocher, G. P. (2010). Responding to research wrongdoing: A user-friendly guide. Retrieved from http://www.ethicsresearch.com
14. Kerr, N. L. 1998. HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2: 196-217.
15. Koocher, G. and Keith-Spiegel, P. 2010. Opinion: Peers nip misconduct in the bud. Nature, 466: 438-440.
16. Koocher, G. P., Keith-Spiegel, P., Tabachnick, B. G., Sieber, J. E. and Butler, D. L. 2010. How do researchers respond to perceived scientific wrongdoing? Overview, method and survey results [Supplemental material]. Nature, 466: 438-440.
17. Kraut, A. (2011, December). Despite occasional scandals, science can police itself. The Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/section/Home/5
18. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S. and de Vries, R. 2005. Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435: 737-738.
19. Medin, D. L. (2011, November). A science we can believe in. Observer 24(10). Retrieved from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer
20. Nickerson, R. S. 1998. Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2: 175-220.
21. Panter, A. T. and Sterba, S. K. 2011. Handbook of ethics in quantitative methodology, New York, NY: Routledge Academic. &Eds.
22. Parkinson, S. 1994. Commentary: Scientific or ethical quality?. Psychological Science, 5: 137-138.
23. Peterson, C. 2009. Minimally sufficient research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4: 7-9.
24. Pomerantz, J. R. 1994. Commentary: On criteria for ethics in science: Commentary on Rosenthal. Psychological Science, 5: 135-136.
25. Resnick, D. B. (2011). What is ethics in research and why is it important? Retrieved from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences-National Institutes of Health web site http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/resources/bioethics/whatis
26. Rodgers, J. L. 2010. The epistemology of mathematical and statistical modeling: A quiet methodological revolution. American Psychologist, 65, 1: 1-12.
27. Rosenthal, R. 1994. Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological research. Psychological Science, 5: 127-134.
28. Rosnow, R. L. and Rosenthal, R. 2011. "Ethical principles in data analysis: An overview". In Handbook of ethics in quantitative methodology, Edited by: Panter, A. T. and Sterba, S. K. 37-60. New York, NY: Routledge Academic. &In&Eds.pp.
29. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D. and Simonsohn, U. 2011. False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22: 1359-1366.
30. Steneck, N. H. 2007. ORI introduction to the responsible conduct of research, Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.
31. Sterba, S. K. 2006. Misconduct in the analysis and reporting of data: Bridging methodological and ethical agendas for change. Ethics & Behavior, 16: 305-318.
32. Tabachnick, B. G. and Fidell, L. S. 2007. Using multivariate statistics, 5th, Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. &ed.
33. Tukey, J. W. 1980. We need both exploratory and confirmatory. American Statistician, 34: 23-25.
34. Wilkinson, L. and Task Force on Statistical Inference. 1999. Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54: 594-604.