The meaning of "significance" for different types of research [translated and annotated by Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, Denny Borsboom, Josine Verhagen, Rogier Kievit, Marjan Bakker, Angelique Cramer, Dora Matzke, Don Mellenbergh, and Han L. J. van der Maas]

Acta Psychologica

Volumn 148, Issue , 2014, Pages 188-194

  De Groot, A D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Confirmatory research; De Groot; Exploratory research; Inference and evidence

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFIRMATORY RESEARCH; DE GROOT; EXPLORATORY RESEARCH; HISTORY; HUMAN; INFERENCE AND EVIDENCE; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICS; TRANSLATING (LANGUAGE);

CONFIRMATORY RESEARCH; DE GROOT; EXPLORATORY RESEARCH; INFERENCE AND EVIDENCE;

HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; TRANSLATING;

EID: 84894636668     PISSN: 00016918     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.02.001     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Begley C.G., Ellis L.M. Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 2012, 483:531-533.
2. Bem D.J. Feeling the future: experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2011, 100:407-425.
3. Brunner D., Balci F., Ludvig E.A. Comparative psychology and the grand challenge of drug discovery in psychiatry and neurodegeneration. Behavioural Processes 2012, 89:187-195.
4. Carp J. The secret lives of experiments: methods reporting in the fMRI literature. NeuroImage 2012, 63:289-300.
5. Chambers C.D. Registered reports: a new publishing initiative at Cortex. Cortex 2013, 49:609-610.
6. Chambers C.D., Munafo M., et al. Trust in science would be improved by study pre-registration. The Guardian 2013, (http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/jun/05/trust-in-science-study-pre-registration).
7. De Groot A.D. Methodology: foundations of inference and research in the behavioral sciences 1969, Mouton, The Hague.
8. Dienes Z. Bayesian versus orthodox statistics: which side are you on?. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2011, 62:74-290.
9. Galak J., LeBoeuf R.A., Nelson L.D., Simmons J.P. Correcting the past: failures to replicate psi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2012, 103:933-948.
10. Goldacre B. Bad science 2008, Fourth Estate, London.
11. Goldacre B. Bad pharma: how drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients 2012, Fourth Estate, London.
12. Ioannidis J.P.A. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine 2005, 2:696-701.
13. John L.K., Loewenstein G., Prelec D. Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth-telling. Psychological Science 2012, 23:524-532.
14. Kerr N.L. HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review 1998, 2:196-217.
15. Kriegeskorte N., Simmons W.K., Bellgowan P.S.F., Baker C.I. Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: the dangers of double dipping. Nature Neuroscience 2009, 12:535-540.
16. MacCallum R.C., Roznowski M., Necowitz L.B. Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: the problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin 1992, 111:490-504.
17. Neuroskeptic The nine circles of scientific hell. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7:643-644.
18. Nosek B.A., Bar-Anan Y. Scientific utopia: I. Opening scientific communication. Psychological Inquiry 2012, 23:217-243.
19. Nosek B.A., Spies J.R., Motyl M. Scientific utopia: II. Restructuring incentives and practices to promote truth over publishability. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7:615-631.
20. Pashler H., Wagenmakers E.J. Editors' introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: a crisis of confidence?. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7:528-530.
21. Prinz F., Schlange T., Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2011, 10:712-713.
22. Ritchie S.J., Wiseman R., French C.C. Failing the future: three unsuccessful attempts to replicate Bem's 'retroactive facilitation of recall' effect. PLoS One 2012, 7:e33423.
23. Scott J.G., Berger J.O. Bayes and empirical-Bayes multiplicity adjustment in the variable-selection problem. The Annals of Statistics 2010, 38:2587-2619.
24. Simmons J.P., Nelson L.D., Simonsohn U. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 2011, 22:1359-1366.
25. Spitz J.C. De Betekenis van het SignificantieniveauDe betekenis van het significantieniveau. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie en Haar Grensgebieden 1956, 11:410-418.
26. Stephens M., Balding D.J. Bayesian statistical methods for genetic association studies. Nature Reviews Genetics 2009, 10:681-690.
27. Vul E., Harris C., Winkielman P., Pashler H. Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2009, 4:274-290.
28. Wadman M. NIH mulls rules for validating key results: US biomedical agency could enlist independent labs for verification. Nature 2013, 500:14-16.
29. Wagenmakers E.J., Wetzels R., Borsboom D., van der Maas H.L.J. Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: the case of psi. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2011, 100:426-432.
30. Wagenmakers E.J., Wetzels R., Borsboom D., van der Maas H.L.J., Kievit R.A. An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012, 7:627-633.
31. Wolfe J.M. Registered reports and replications in attention, perception, & psychophysics. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2013, 75:781-783.