Nick Byrd, Ph.D.<p>Do professors with less PC views self-censor?</p><p>Clark et al. reported only the linear relationship: the less PC their view, the more reluctant professors were to share it. Kudos to Clark et al. for publishing their data so Luke could detect a better-fitting non-linear, non-unified explanation: most professors were not self-censoring; they were either uncertain or else unreluctant to share.</p><p><a href="https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ab34v" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="">doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ab34v</span><span class="invisible"></span></a> </p><p><a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/edu" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>edu</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/higherEd" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>higherEd</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/psychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>psychMethods</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/logic" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>logic</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/replicability" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>replicability</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/manyAnalysts" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>manyAnalysts</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/metaScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>metaScience</span></a></p>
Recent searches
No recent searches
Search options
Only available when logged in.
techhub.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A hub primarily for passionate technologists, but everyone is welcome
Administered by:
Server stats:
5.3Kactive users
techhub.social: About · Status · Profiles directory · Privacy policy
Mastodon: About · Get the app · Keyboard shortcuts · View source code · v4.3.7
#psychmethods
0 posts · 0 participants · 0 posts today
Nick Byrd, Ph.D.<p>Surprised this conclusion survived <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/peerReview" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>peerReview</span></a>: a "program succeeded in promoting positive attitudes and beliefs" about "<a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/implicitBias" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>implicitBias</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/education" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>education</span></a> ...among ...police" (N = 145).</p><p>The 1st survey was online, but the 2nd was in-person. And the 1st survey's questions weren't about the same trainings as the 2nd survey's.</p><p>So any differences in answers are as explainable by differences between the surveys as they are by one <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/education" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>education</span></a> program.</p><p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2023.2296585" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2023.</span><span class="invisible">2296585</span></a></p><p><a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/psychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>psychMethods</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/logic" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>logic</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/psychology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>psychology</span></a></p>
Nick Byrd, Ph.D.<p>When people ask me how to estimate the sample size needed for their research question, my answers fall broadly into two buckets: power analysis and precision for planning analysis. But there seem to be other options as well.</p><p>What's your preferred method?<br>Preferred software? (Or software package?)</p><p><a href="https://qr.ae/pKnFql" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="">qr.ae/pKnFql</span><span class="invisible"></span></a></p><p><a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/Stats" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Stats</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/QuantPsych" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>QuantPsych</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/PsychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PsychMethods</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/R" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>R</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/TheNewStats" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>TheNewStats</span></a></p>
Nick Byrd, Ph.D.<p>Are you more likely to fall for trick (reflection test) questions on a smartphone or PC?</p><p>Turned out it didn't make a difference unless you let people self-select which device they used — and even that difference was better explained by gender and self-reported intuitive decision style.</p><p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2023.2196769" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2023.</span><span class="invisible">2196769</span></a></p><p><a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/decisionScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>decisionScience</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/cogSci" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>cogSci</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/PsychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PsychMethods</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/UX" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>UX</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/tech" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>tech</span></a></p>
Nick Byrd, Ph.D.<p>Remember that "...WEIRDest people in the world" paper?</p><p>Now <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/xPhi" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>xPhi</span></a> has one: Of "171 experimental philosophy studies [from] 2017 [to] 2023 [including one of mine] most ...tested only Western populations but generalized beyond them without justification." </p><p>Incentives may be part of the issue: "studies with broader conclusions ...had higher citation impact."</p><p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.109" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="">doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.109</span><span class="invisible"></span></a></p><p><a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/xPhi" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>xPhi</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/PsychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PsychMethods</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/Culture" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Culture</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/Demography" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Demography</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/PhilSci" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilSci</span></a></p>
Nick Byrd, Ph.D.<p>"Deontological and absolutist moral dilemma judgments convey self-righteousness" in U.S., German-speaking, and British participants (N = 1254).</p><p>In the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104505" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2023.10</span><span class="invisible">4505</span></a></p><p><a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/ProcessDissociation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ProcessDissociation</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/DecisionScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>DecisionScience</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/psychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>psychMethods</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/moralPsychology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>moralPsychology</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/xPhi" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>xPhi</span></a></p>
Nick Byrd, Ph.D.<p><a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/Civicbase" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Civicbase</span></a> brings upvoting and downvoting to preference measurement—but with a budget.</p><p>Participants can select or agree or disagree buttons (up to 7 times) to allocate a limited voting credits (that carry over to future studies?).</p><p>May reveal priorities that Likert scales and ranked-choices cannot.</p><p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/aaai.12103" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="">doi.org/10.1002/aaai.12103</span><span class="invisible"></span></a></p><p>Presumably, this could be used for all sorts of preferences (beyond civics/politics).</p><p><a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/measurement" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>measurement</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/PsychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PsychMethods</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/openSource" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>openSource</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/decisionScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>decisionScience</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/poliSci" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>poliSci</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/cogSci" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>cogSci</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/gamification" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>gamification</span></a></p>
Nick Byrd, Ph.D.<p>How do we know what participants thought when we presented our stimuli?</p><p><a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/ProcessTracing" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ProcessTracing</span></a> can reveal what people saw (e.g., eye-tracking), consciously thought (e.g., concurrent think-aloud), etc.</p><p>Combining those two methods revealed:<br>(1) thinking aloud didn't impact gaze or word count<br>(2) retrospective think-aloud left out thoughts that were mentioned concurrently<br>(3) retrospective think-aloud introduced thoughts unmentioned concurrently</p><p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14956-1_5" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-1495</span><span class="invisible">6-1_5</span></a></p><p><a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/PsychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PsychMethods</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/CogSci" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>CogSci</span></a> <a href="https://nerdculture.de/tags/xPhi" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>xPhi</span></a></p>
Mark Rubin<p>Planning a longitudinal study? Here’s four questions you should ask:</p><p>🔹 How should time be scaled?</p><p>🔹 How many assessments are needed?</p><p>🔹 How frequently should assessments occur?</p><p>🔹 When should assessments happen?</p><p>Hopwood et al. (2022). “Connecting theory to methods in longitudinal research”: <br><a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211008407" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">doi.org/10.1177/17456916211008</span><span class="invisible">407</span></a> </p><p>Author on Mastodon: <span class="h-card"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@aidangcw" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>aidangcw</span></a></span></p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Stats" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Stats</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Statistics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Statistics</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Methodology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Methodology</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Psychology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Psychology</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PsychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PsychMethods</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ResearchDesign" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ResearchDesign</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/LongitudinalResearch" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>LongitudinalResearch</span></a></p>
Mark Rubin<p>New paper provides a history of “voodoo science,” which discusses the controversy surrounding Vul et al.’s (2009) controversial article “Puzzlingly High Correlations in FMRI Studies of Emotion, Personality, and Social Cognition.”</p><p>Five quotes follow: 🧵👉</p><p>🔓 <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12010015" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="">doi.org/10.3390/socsci12010015</span><span class="invisible"></span></a></p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Neuroscience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Neuroscience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Neuroimaging" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Neuroimaging</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaResearch" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaResearch</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PsychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PsychMethods</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ReplicationCrisis" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ReplicationCrisis</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilSci" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilSci</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Fmri" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Fmri</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/VoodooCorrelations" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>VoodooCorrelations</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/UseNovelty" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>UseNovelty</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MultipleTesting" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MultipleTesting</span></a></p>
Mark Rubin<p>Critical Metascience:</p><p>2022 has been a bumper year for what I’d call “critical metascience” - work that takes a step back and offers a critical perspective in the field.</p><p>My Top 10 papers of 2022 in this area are, in alphabetical order… 🥁 🧵👉</p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>OpenScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaResearch" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaResearch</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PsychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PsychMethods</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ReplicationCrisis" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ReplicationCrisis</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/SociologyofScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>SociologyofScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScienceofScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ScienceofScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilSci" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilSci</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilScidon" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilScidon</span></a></p><p>1/12</p>
Mark Rubin<p>Replicability and Theory:</p><p>“Our results suggest that many of the practices that have been proposed as a means to improve the replicability of psychological research—such as open data and methods…preregistration and Registered Reports…and basing conclusions on Bayesian inference…or p < .005 rather than p < .05…—do indeed improve confidence in replicability among our sample.”</p><p>Continued 🙂 🧵👉</p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaResearch" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaResearch</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PsychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PsychMethods</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ReplicationCrisis" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ReplicationCrisis</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilSci" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilSci</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilScidon" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilScidon</span></a></p>
John S. Wilkins<p><span class="h-card"><a href="https://fediscience.org/@MarkRubin" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>MarkRubin</span></a></span> This is massively simplistic. Hypotheses include the criteria for delineating phenomena in need of explanation, satisfaction criteria for success, disciplinary standards and practices, and taxonomies of subjects under investigation. IMO.<br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaResearch" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaResearch</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PsychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PsychMethods</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ReplicationCrisis" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ReplicationCrisis</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilSci" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilSci</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilScidon" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilScidon</span></a></p>
Mark Rubin<p>What’s a hypothesis?</p><p>“A hypothesis is not simply a guess about the result of an experiment. It is a proposed explanation that can predict the outcome of an experiment. A hypothesis has two components: (1) an explanation and (2) a prediction. A prediction simply isn’t useful on its own.” (Haroz, 2014)</p><p>Blog post: <a href="http://steveharoz.com/blog/2014/mysterious-origins-of-hypotheses-in-visualization-and-chi/" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">http://</span><span class="ellipsis">steveharoz.com/blog/2014/myste</span><span class="invisible">rious-origins-of-hypotheses-in-visualization-and-chi/</span></a> </p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaResearch" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaResearch</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PsychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PsychMethods</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ReplicationCrisis" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ReplicationCrisis</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilSci" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilSci</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilScidon" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilScidon</span></a></p>
Mark Rubin<p>A “quietist” response to the replication crisis:</p><p>“The quietist approach proposes that we should just accept that it is in the nature of science that we get things wrong, and that this is particularly true with sciences in early stages of development.”</p><p>Bird (2021). Understanding the replication crisis as a base rate fallacy.</p><p>🔒 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axy051" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="">doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axy051</span><span class="invisible"></span></a></p><p>🔓 <a href="https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files/95454096/Replication_base_rate_fallacy_REV2.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/portal/files</span><span class="invisible">/95454096/Replication_base_rate_fallacy_REV2.pdf</span></a></p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaResearch" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaResearch</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PsychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PsychMethods</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ReplicationCrisis" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ReplicationCrisis</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilSci" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilSci</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilScidon" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilScidon</span></a><br><span class="h-card"><a href="https://a.gup.pe/u/philosophy" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>philosophy</span></a></span></p>
Mark Rubin<p>Bad Stats / Poor Methods:</p><p>Qualitative study finds 39.8% of 548 psychology researchers believe that statistics and/or research methods are misused and/or misunderstood in the field.</p><p>Miranda et al. (May 2022). How do researchers in psychology perceive the field? A qualitative exploration of critiques and defenses. Collabra: Psychology.</p><p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.35711" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="">doi.org/10.1525/collabra.35711</span><span class="invisible"></span></a> </p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Psychology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Psychology</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Stats" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Stats</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Statistics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Statistics</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>OpenScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaResearch" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaResearch</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PsychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PsychMethods</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ReplicationCrisis" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ReplicationCrisis</span></a></p>
Mark Rubin<p>No evidence of p-hacking in imaging research:</p><p>Analysis of 4,105 randomly sampled p-values finds no evidence of p-hacking in work published in over 100 imaging journals since 1972.</p><p>Rooprai et al. (2022): <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0846537122113941" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">doi.org/10.1177/08465371221139</span><span class="invisible">41</span></a> </p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Stats" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Stats</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Statistics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Statistics</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>OpenScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaResearch" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaResearch</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PsychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PsychMethods</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ReplicationCrisis" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ReplicationCrisis</span></a></p>
Amanda Kay Montoya<p>Do you have <a href="https://mstdn.social/tags/MissingData" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MissingData</span></a> ? (Yes, we all do). Do you worry your imputation model may not be correct? (Yes, we all do!) Check out this paper by colleagues and alum from <a href="https://mstdn.social/tags/UCLA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>UCLA</span></a> for a description of methods to evaluate compatibility of your imputation model! <a href="https://mstdn.social/tags/Statistics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Statistics</span></a> <a href="https://mstdn.social/tags/PsychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PsychMethods</span></a> <a href="https://mstdn.social/tags/QuantMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>QuantMethods</span></a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01749-5" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-017</span><span class="invisible">49-5</span></a></p>
Mark Rubin<p>Looks like a great talk from Stephan Guttinger on Questionable Research Practices</p><p>“What should be abandoned is not the idea of questioning practice, but the idea that there is a class of questionable research practices.” </p><p>Slides: <a href="https://philstatwars.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/guttinger_draft_red.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">philstatwars.files.wordpress.c</span><span class="invisible">om/2022/12/guttinger_draft_red.pdf</span></a> </p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>OpenScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaResearch" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaResearch</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PsychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PsychMethods</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ReplicationCrisis" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ReplicationCrisis</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/QRPs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>QRPs</span></a></p>
Mark Rubin<p>“We are not only in a replication but an interpretation crisis, a crisis of theory building.”</p><p>Benjamin Krämer (<span class="h-card"><a href="https://social.saarland/@benjkraemer" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@<span>benjkraemer</span></a></span>) (2022, November). Why are most published research findings under-theorized? In Questions of Communicative Change and Continuity. </p><p>🔓 <a href="https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/9783748928232-23.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/9783</span><span class="invisible">748928232-23.pdf</span></a> </p><p><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>OpenScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/MetaScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>MetaScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PsychMethods" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PsychMethods</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ReplicationCrisis" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ReplicationCrisis</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScienceofScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>ScienceofScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilosophyOfScience" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilosophyOfScience</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilSci" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilSci</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/PhilScidon" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>PhilScidon</span></a><br><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Communication" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#<span>Communication</span></a></p>
ExploreLive feeds
Mastodon is the best way to keep up with what's happening.
Follow anyone across the fediverse and see it all in chronological order. No algorithms, ads, or clickbait in sight.
Create accountLoginDrag & drop to upload