Limits...
Statistical Reporting Errors and Collaboration on Statistical Analyses in Psychological Science.

Veldkamp CL, Nuijten MB, Dominguez-Alvarez L, van Assen MA, Wicherts JM - PLoS ONE (2014)

Bottom Line: To document the extent to which this 'co-piloting' currently occurs in psychology, we surveyed the authors of 697 articles published in six top psychology journals and asked them whether they had collaborated on four aspects of analyzing data and reporting results, and whether the described data had been shared between the authors.We acquired responses for 49.6% of the articles and found that co-piloting on statistical analysis and reporting results is quite uncommon among psychologists, while data sharing among co-authors seems reasonably but not completely standard.Co-piloting was not found to be associated with reporting errors.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.

ABSTRACT
Statistical analysis is error prone. A best practice for researchers using statistics would therefore be to share data among co-authors, allowing double-checking of executed tasks just as co-pilots do in aviation. To document the extent to which this 'co-piloting' currently occurs in psychology, we surveyed the authors of 697 articles published in six top psychology journals and asked them whether they had collaborated on four aspects of analyzing data and reporting results, and whether the described data had been shared between the authors. We acquired responses for 49.6% of the articles and found that co-piloting on statistical analysis and reporting results is quite uncommon among psychologists, while data sharing among co-authors seems reasonably but not completely standard. We then used an automated procedure to study the prevalence of statistical reporting errors in the articles in our sample and examined the relationship between reporting errors and co-piloting. Overall, 63% of the articles contained at least one p-value that was inconsistent with the reported test statistic and the accompanying degrees of freedom, and 20% of the articles contained at least one p-value that was inconsistent to such a degree that it may have affected decisions about statistical significance. Overall, the probability that a given p-value was inconsistent was over 10%. Co-piloting was not found to be associated with reporting errors.

No MeSH data available.


The probability per journal that a given p-value comprises an error or a gross error (with 95% confidence interval).Note. JAP = Journal of Applied Psychology (n = 340); JCCP = Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (n = 833); JCN = Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (n = 1,721); JCPP = Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (n = 444); JPSP = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (n = 4,018); PP = Psychophysiology (n = 749); TOTAL = all p-values together (N = 8,105).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4262438&req=5

pone-0114876-g003: The probability per journal that a given p-value comprises an error or a gross error (with 95% confidence interval).Note. JAP = Journal of Applied Psychology (n = 340); JCCP = Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (n = 833); JCN = Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (n = 1,721); JCPP = Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (n = 444); JPSP = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (n = 4,018); PP = Psychophysiology (n = 749); TOTAL = all p-values together (N = 8,105).

Mentions: Running the multilevel logistic regression analyses with article as a random factor and journal as a fixed factor revealed that there were differences in the p-values’ error probabilities between journals: χ2 (5, N = 8105) = 17.53, p = .004. The probability that a given p-value comprised an error was lower in the Journal of Applied Psychology (3.4%, CI [1.7–6.6]) than in all other fields (all ps ≤.004<0.05/6). One explanation for the lower error probability in this journal may be that its low mean number of reported p-values per article (8.10) renders errors more easily detectable by (co-)authors and other readers. The probability that a p-value comprised a gross error did not differ between journals: χ2 (5, N = 8105) = 1.92, p = .860. The error probabilities for the sample of p-values as a whole as well as for the p-values in each field separately are presented in Fig. 3, together with their 95% confidence intervals.


Statistical Reporting Errors and Collaboration on Statistical Analyses in Psychological Science.

Veldkamp CL, Nuijten MB, Dominguez-Alvarez L, van Assen MA, Wicherts JM - PLoS ONE (2014)

The probability per journal that a given p-value comprises an error or a gross error (with 95% confidence interval).Note. JAP = Journal of Applied Psychology (n = 340); JCCP = Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (n = 833); JCN = Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (n = 1,721); JCPP = Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (n = 444); JPSP = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (n = 4,018); PP = Psychophysiology (n = 749); TOTAL = all p-values together (N = 8,105).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4262438&req=5

pone-0114876-g003: The probability per journal that a given p-value comprises an error or a gross error (with 95% confidence interval).Note. JAP = Journal of Applied Psychology (n = 340); JCCP = Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (n = 833); JCN = Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (n = 1,721); JCPP = Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (n = 444); JPSP = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (n = 4,018); PP = Psychophysiology (n = 749); TOTAL = all p-values together (N = 8,105).
Mentions: Running the multilevel logistic regression analyses with article as a random factor and journal as a fixed factor revealed that there were differences in the p-values’ error probabilities between journals: χ2 (5, N = 8105) = 17.53, p = .004. The probability that a given p-value comprised an error was lower in the Journal of Applied Psychology (3.4%, CI [1.7–6.6]) than in all other fields (all ps ≤.004<0.05/6). One explanation for the lower error probability in this journal may be that its low mean number of reported p-values per article (8.10) renders errors more easily detectable by (co-)authors and other readers. The probability that a p-value comprised a gross error did not differ between journals: χ2 (5, N = 8105) = 1.92, p = .860. The error probabilities for the sample of p-values as a whole as well as for the p-values in each field separately are presented in Fig. 3, together with their 95% confidence intervals.

Bottom Line: To document the extent to which this 'co-piloting' currently occurs in psychology, we surveyed the authors of 697 articles published in six top psychology journals and asked them whether they had collaborated on four aspects of analyzing data and reporting results, and whether the described data had been shared between the authors.We acquired responses for 49.6% of the articles and found that co-piloting on statistical analysis and reporting results is quite uncommon among psychologists, while data sharing among co-authors seems reasonably but not completely standard.Co-piloting was not found to be associated with reporting errors.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.

ABSTRACT
Statistical analysis is error prone. A best practice for researchers using statistics would therefore be to share data among co-authors, allowing double-checking of executed tasks just as co-pilots do in aviation. To document the extent to which this 'co-piloting' currently occurs in psychology, we surveyed the authors of 697 articles published in six top psychology journals and asked them whether they had collaborated on four aspects of analyzing data and reporting results, and whether the described data had been shared between the authors. We acquired responses for 49.6% of the articles and found that co-piloting on statistical analysis and reporting results is quite uncommon among psychologists, while data sharing among co-authors seems reasonably but not completely standard. We then used an automated procedure to study the prevalence of statistical reporting errors in the articles in our sample and examined the relationship between reporting errors and co-piloting. Overall, 63% of the articles contained at least one p-value that was inconsistent with the reported test statistic and the accompanying degrees of freedom, and 20% of the articles contained at least one p-value that was inconsistent to such a degree that it may have affected decisions about statistical significance. Overall, the probability that a given p-value was inconsistent was over 10%. Co-piloting was not found to be associated with reporting errors.

No MeSH data available.