Estimating the [replicability] of psychological science (RPP)
Aarts, A. A., ... , LeBel, E. P., ... , Nosek, B. A. (2015)
Science 10.1126/science.aac4716 Replications 100
100 social/cognitive psychology effects
Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.
- Simonsohn (2016) Evaluating Replications: 40% Full ≠ 60% Empty
- Gilbert, D. T., King, G., Pettigrew, S., & Wilson, T. D. (2016). Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”. Science, 351(6277), 1037-1037.
- Etz, A., & Vandekerckhove, J. (2016). A Bayesian perspective on the reproducibility project: Psychology. PLoS One, 11(2), e0149794.
- Van Bavel, J. J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W. J., & Reinero, D. A. (2016). Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(23), 6454-6459.
- Inbar, Y. (2016). Association between contextual dependence and replicability in psychology may be spurious. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(34), E4933-4.
- Bench, S. W., Rivera, G. N., Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., & Lench, H. C. (2017). Does expertise matter in replication? An examination of the reproducibility project: psychology. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 181-184.
- Hartgerink, C. H., Wicherts, J. M., & van Assen, M. A. (2017). Too good to be false: Nonsignificant results revisited. Collabra: Psychology, 3(1).
- Johnson, V. E., Payne, R. D., Wang, T., Asher, A., & Mandal, S. (2017). On the reproducibility of psychological science. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 112(517), 1-10.
- Wilson, B. M., & Wixted, J. T. (2018). The Prior Odds of Testing a True Effect in Cognitive and Social Psychology. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2515245918767122.