Skip to main content
Log in

Improving the Conduct and Reporting of Statistical Analysis in Psychology

  • Published:
Psychometrika Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We respond to the commentaries Waldman and Lilienfeld (Psychometrika, 2015) and Wigboldus and Dotch (Psychometrika, 2015) provided in response to Sijtsma’s (Sijtsma in Psychometrika, 2015) discussion article on questionable research practices. Specifically, we discuss the fear of an increased dichotomy between substantive and statistical aspects of research that may arise when the latter aspects are laid entirely in the hands of a statistician, remedies for false positives and replication failure, and the status of data exploration, and we provide a re-definition of the concept of questionable research practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2011). The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 666–678.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2014). Outlier removal, sum scores, and the inflation of the Type I error rate in t tests. The power of alternatives and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 19, 409–427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 543–554.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D. (2006). The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrika, 71, 425–440.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1954). Report on a psychometric mission to Clinicia. Psychometrika, 19, 263–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological Science, 25, 7–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fanelli, D. (2013). Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature, 494, 149.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. A. (1938). Presidential Address. Talk given at the 1st Indian Statistical Conference, Calcutta, India.

  • Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med, 2(8), e124.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23, 524–532.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., & De Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435(7043), 737–738. doi:10.1038/435737a.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pashler, H., & Harris, C. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 531–536.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. (1994). Science and ethics in conducting, analyzing, and reporting psychological research. Psychological Science, 5, 127–134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sijtsma, K. (2015). Playing with data–Or how to discourage questionable research practices and stimulate researchers to do things right. Psychometrika. doi:10.1007/s11336-015-9446-0.

  • Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 53–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veldkamp, C. L. S., Nuijten, M. B., Dominguez-Alvarez, L., Van Assen, M. A. L. M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2014). Statistical reporting errors and collaboration on statistical analyses in psychological science. PloS ONE, 9, e114876.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, I. D., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2015). Thinking about data, research methods, and statistical analyses: Commentary on Sijtsma’s (2014) “Playing with data". Psychometrika. doi:10.1007/s11336-015-9447-z.

  • Wigboldus, D. H. J., & Dotch, R. (2015). Encourage playing with data and discourage questionable reporting practices. Psychometrika. doi:10.1007/s11336-015-9445-1.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klaas Sijtsma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sijtsma, K., Veldkamp, C.L.S. & Wicherts, J.M. Improving the Conduct and Reporting of Statistical Analysis in Psychology. Psychometrika 81, 33–38 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-015-9444-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-015-9444-2

Keywords

Navigation