Applying psychometric theory and research to developing a continuously distributed approach to making research funding decisions

Review of General Psychology

Volumn 16, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 298-304

  De Los Reyes, Andres ^a   Wang, Mo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Methodology; Peer review; Psychometrics; Research funding

Indexed keywords

EID: 84874560477     PISSN: 10892680     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0027250     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Cicchetti, D. V. (1991). The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 119-135. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00065675
2. Fang, F. C., & Casadevall, A. (2009). NIH peer review reform-Change we need, or lipstick on a pig? Infection and Immunity, 77, 929-932. doi:10.1128/IAI.01567-08
3. Graves, N., Barnett, A. G., & Clarke, P. (2011). Cutting random funding decisions. Nature, 469, 299. doi:10.1038/469299c
4. Insel, T., Cuthbert, B., Garvey, M., Heinssen, R., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K., & Wang, P. (2010). Research domain criteria (RDoC): Toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 748-751. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09091379
5. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2011). Fund people not projects. Nature, 477, 529-531.
6. Johnson, V. E. (2008). Statistical analysis of the National Institutes of Health peer review system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 11076-11080. doi:10.1073/pnas.0804538105
7. Markon, K. E., Chmielewski, M., & Miller, C. J. (2011). The reliability and validity of discrete and continuous measures of psychopathology: A quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 856-879. doi:10.1037/a0023678
8. Marsh, H. W., Jayasinghe, U. W., & Bond, N. W. (2008). Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. American Psychologist, 63, 160-168. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.160
9. Meehl, P. E. (2004). What's in a taxon? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 39-43. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.113.1.39
10. National Institutes of Health. (2009). Enhancing peer review at NIH. Retrieved from http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/process&changes.html
11. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
12. Tatsioni, A., Vavva, E., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2010). Sources of funding for Nobel Prize-winning work: Public or private? The FASEB Journal, 24, 1335-1339. doi:10.1096/fj.09-148239