Erratum: Continuously cumulating meta-analysis and replicability [Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, (2014) 333-342, DOI 10.1177/1745691614529796];Continuously Cumulating Meta-Analysis and Replicability

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 333-342

  Braver, Sanford L ^a,c   Thoemmes, Felix J ^b   Rosenthal, Robert ^c  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

effect size heterogeneity; meta analysis; replication; statistical intuition

Indexed keywords

EID: 84899830518     PISSN: 17456916     EISSN: 17456924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1745691614542784     Document Type: Erratum

References (67)

1. Anderson C. A.,Lindsay J. J.,Bushman B. J.Research in the psychological laboratory.Current Directions in Psychological Science. 1999;8:3-9.
2. Bakker M.,van Dijk A.,Wicherts J. M.The rules of the game called psychological science.Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7:543-554.
3. Bargh J. A.,Chen M.,Burrows L.Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1996;71:230-244.
4. BartlettT. (2012). Is psychology about to come undone?Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/is-psychology-about-to-come-undone/29045.
5. Berlin J. A.,Laird N. M.,Sacks H. S.,Chalmers T. C.A comparison of statistical methods for combining event rates from clinical trials.Statistics in Medicine. 1989;8:141-151.
6. Bernoulli J.Berlin, Germany: Verlag; 1713:.
7. BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P.RothsteinH. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. Available from Wiley.com.
8. Carpenter S.Psychology's bold initiative: In an unusual attempt at scientific self-examination, psychology researchers are scrutinizing their field's reproducibility.Science. 2012;335:1558-1560.
9. Cohen J.The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1962;65:145-153.
10. Cohen J.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1988:.
11. Cohen J.The earth is round (p < .05).American Psychologist. 1994;49:997-1003.
12. Cooper H. M.Statistically combining independent studies: A meta-analysis of sex differences in conformity research.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1979;37:131-146.
13. Cumming G.Replication and p intervals: p values predict the future only vaguely, but confidence intervals do much better.Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2008;3:286-300.
14. Cumming G.Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. London, England: Routledge; 2013:.
15. Cumming G.,Finch S.A primer on the understanding, use, and calculation of confidence intervals that are based on central and noncentral distributions.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2001;61:532-574.
16. Doyen S.,Klein O.,Pichon C. L.,Cleeremans A.Behavioral priming: It's all in the mind, but whose mind?.PLoS ONE. 2012;7 (1): e29081.
17. Ellis P. D.The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2010:.
18. Fleiss J. L.The statistical basis of meta-analysis.Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 1993;2:121-145.
19. Francis G.Too good to be true: Publication bias in two prominent studies from experimental psychology.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2012;19:151-156.
20. Giner-Sorolla R.Science or art? How aesthetic standards grease the way through the publication bottleneck but undermine science.Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7:562-571.
21. Hall J. A.Sex differences and similarities in communication. Canary D. J.Dindia K., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1998:155-177.
22. Harris C. R.,Coburn N.,Rohrer D.,Pashler H.Two failures to replicate high-performance-goal priming effects.PLoS ONE. 2013;8 (8): e72467.
23. Hedges L. V.Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments.Psychological Bulletin. 1982;92:490-499.
24. Higgins J. P. T.,Thompson S. G.,Deeks J. J.,Altman D. G.Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.British Medical Journal. 2003;327:557-560.
25. Huedo-Medina T. B.,Sánchez-Meca J.,Marín-Martínez F.,Botella J.Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I 2 index?.Psychological Methods. 2006;11:193-206.
26. Ioannidis J. P.,Patsopoulos N. A.,Evangelou E.Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses.British Medical Journal. 2007;335:914-916.
27. 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.
28. KahnemanD. (2002). Prize lecture: Maps of bounded rationality. Retrieved from http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2002/kahneman-lecture.html.
29. KleinR.RatliffK.VianelloM.AdamsR.BahinkS.BernsteinM. NosekB. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A "Many Labs" Replication Project. Retrieved from https://osf.io/wx7ck/.
30. LakensD. (2014). Professors are not elderly: Evaluating the evidential value of two social priming effects through p-curve analyses. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2381936.
31. Lakens D.,Evers E.Sailing from the seas of chaos into the corridor of stability: Practical recommendations to increase the informational value of studies.Perspectives in Psychological Science. 2014;9:278-292.
32. Lipsey M. W.,Wilson D. B.The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis.American Psychologist. 1993;48:1181-1209.
33. Lipsey M. W.,Wilson D. B.Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2001:.
34. Lorge I.,Curtiss C. C.Prestige, suggestion, and attitudes.The Journal of Social Psychology. 1936;7:386-402.
35. Makel M.,Plucker J.,Hegarty B.Replications in psychology research: How often do they really occur?.Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7:537-542.
36. Maner J. K.Let's put our money where our mouth is: If authors are to change their ways, reviewers (and editors) must change with them.Perspectives in Psychological Science. 2014;9:343-351.
37. Marszalek J. M.,Barber C.,Kohlhart J.,Holmes C. B.Sample size in psychological research over the past 30 years.Perceptual & Motor Skills. 2011;112:331-348.
38. Meyer G. J.,Finn S. E.,Eyde L. D.,Kay G. G.,Moreland K. L.,Dies R. R., Reed G. M.Psychological testing and psychological assessment: A review of evidence and issues.American Psychologist. 2001;56:128-156.
39. NelsonL.SimonsohnU.SimmonsJ. (2014). P-curve fixes publication bias: Obtaining unbiased effect size estimates from published studies alone. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2377290.
40. Neuliep J. W.,Crandall R.Handbook of replication research in the behavioral and social sciences. Neuliep J. W., ed. Corta Madera, CA: Select Press; 1990:85-90.
41. Neuliep J. W.,Crandall R.Reviewer bias against replication research.Journal of Social Behavior & Personality. 1993;8 (6): 21-29.
42. An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science.Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2012;7:657-660.
43. Pashler H.,Harris C. R.Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined.Perspectives in Psychological Science. 2012;7:531-536.
44. Patsopoulos N. A.,Evangelou E.,Ioannidis J. P.Sensitivity of between-study heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Proposed metrics and empirical evaluation.International Journal of Epidemiology. 2008;37:1148-1157.
45. Perugini M.,Gallucci M.,Costantini G.Safeguard power as a protection against imprecise power estimates.Perspectives in Psychological Science. 2014;9:319-332.
46. Petitti D.Approaches to heterogeneity in meta-analysis.Statistics in Medicine. 2001;20:3625-3633.
47. Richard F. D.,Bond C. F.,Stokes-Zoota J. J.One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described.Review of General Psychology. 2003;7:331-363.
48. Rosenthal R.The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.Psychological Bulletin. 1979;86:638-664.
49. Rosenthal R.Meta-analytic procedures for social sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1984:.
50. Rosenthal R.Handbook of replication research in the behavioral and social sciences. Neulip J. W., ed. Corta Madera, CA: Select Press; 1990:1-30.
51. Rosenthal R.,Rubin D. B.Comparing significance levels of independent studies.Psychological Bulletin. 1979;56:1165-1168.
52. Rosenthal R.,Rubin D. B.Comparing effect sizes of independent studies.Psychological Bulletin. 1982;92:500-504.
53. Rosnow R. L.,Rosenthal. R.Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science.American Psychologist. 1989;44:1276-1284.
54. Rozeboom W. W.The fallacy of the null-hypothesis significance test.Psychological Bulletin. 1960;57:416-428.
55. Schimmack U.The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles.Psychological Methods. 2012;17:551-566.
56. Schwarzer G.Meta: An R package for meta-analysis.R News. 2007;7 (3): 40-45.
57. Sedlmeier P.,Gigerenzer G.Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies?.Psychological Bulletin. 1989;105:309-316.
58. 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.
59. SimonsohnU. (2013, December10). Small telescopes: Detectability and the evaluation of replication results. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2259879.
60. Stanley D.,Spence J.Expectations for replications: Are yours realistic?.Perspectives in Psychological Science. 2014;9:305-318.
61. Sterne J. A.,Egger M.Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: Guidelines on choice of axis.Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2001;54:1046-1055.
62. Tett R. P.,Meyer J. P.,Roese N. J.Applications of meta analysis: 1987-1992.International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1994;9:71-112.
63. Thompson B.What future quantitative social science research could look like: Confidence intervals for effect sizes.Educational Researcher. 2002;31 (3): 25-32.
64. Tversky A.,Kahneman D.Belief in the law of small numbers.Psychological Bulletin. 1971;76:105-110.
65. Valentine J. C.,Biglan A.,Boruch R. F.,Castro F. G.,Collins L. M.,Flay B. R., Schinke S. P.Replication in prevention science.Prevention Science. 2011;12:103-117.
66. Wetzels R.,Matzke D.,Lee M. D.,Rouder J. N.,Iverson G. J.,Wagenmakers E. J.Statistical evidence in experimental psychology: An empirical comparison using 855 t tests.Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2011;6:291-298.
67. YongE. (2012, March). A failed replication attempt draws a scathing personal attack from a psychology professor. Discover Magazine. Retrieved from http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2012/03/10/failed-replication-barghpsychology-study-doyen/#.U0gDgPldVc4.