No abstract

The dominant belief is that science progresses by testing theories and moving towards theoretical consensus. While it’s implicitly assumed that psychology operates in this manner, critical discussions claim that the field suffers from a lack of cumulative theory. To examine this paradox, we analysed research published in Psychological Science from 2009–2019 (N = 2,225). We found mention of 359 theories in-text, most were referred to only once. Only 53.66% of all manuscripts included the word theory, and only 15.33% explicitly claimed to test predictions derived from theories. We interpret this to suggest that the majority of research published in this flagship journal is not driven by theory, nor can it be contributing to cumulative theory building. These data provide insight into the kinds of research psychologists are conducting and raises questions about the role of theory in the psychological sciences.

Mounting evidence indicates issues with low adherence to existing consensus-based guidelines for conducting systematic reviews (SRs), meaning that SRs can be subject to selective or misreporting practices. This problem arises in part from scarce guidance for reproducible reporting practices. This is compounded by the fact that existing guidelines are mainly applicable to interventional research designs, with systematic reviewers of non-interventional studies resorting to customised tools that deviate from best practice. Here, we present the development of the first comprehensive tool for conducting and reporting Non-Interventional, Reproducible, and Open Systematic Reviews (NIRO-SR). NIRO-SR is a 68-item checklist composed of two parts that provide itemised guidance on the preparation of a protocol for pre-registration (Part A) and reporting the review (Part B) in a reproducible and transparent manner. This paper, the tool, and an open repository (https://osf.io/f3brw/) provide a comprehensive resource for anyone who aims to conduct a high quality SR of non-interventional studies.

Student in governance and decision-making has become ubiquitous in higher education, evolving from buzzword to orthodoxy. Student engagement measures have become instruments of quality control, with students expected to take an active role in shaping institutional policy and practice. In this paper, we argue that this ubiquity of demands for student engagement has served to hollow-out and depoliticise student voice practicesdrawing upon Cooke and Kothari's seminal ( 2001) work in development studies to ask whether student voice has become a new tyranny of participation? In developing this argument, we identify how students are expected to be both strategic, instrumental consumers and active citizens of their university. This results in the paradox of the strategic active student citizen.

The dominant belief is that science progresses by testing theories and moving towards theoretical consensus. While it’s implicitly assumed that psychology operates in this manner, critical discussions claim that the field suffers from a lack of cumulative theory. To examine this paradox, we analysed research published in Psychological Science from 2009-2019 (N = 2,225). We found mention of 359 theories in-text, most were referred to only once. Only 53.66% of all manuscripts included the word theory, and only 15.33% explicitly claim to test predictions derived from theories. We interpret this to suggest that most psychological research is not driven by theory, nor can it be contributing to cumulative theory building. These data provide insight into the kinds of research psychologists are conducting and raises questions about the role of theory in the psychological sciences.

Most of the commonly used and endorsed guidelines for systematic review protocols and reporting standards have been developed for intervention research. These excellent guidelines have been adopted as the gold-standard for systematic reviews as an evidence synthesis method. In the current paper, we highlight some issues that may arise from adopting these guidelines beyond intervention designs, including in basic behavioural, cognitive, experimental, and exploratory research. We have adapted and built upon the existing guidelines to establish a complementary, comprehensive, and accessible tool for designing, conducting, and reporting Non-Intervention, Reproducible, and Open Systematic Reviews (NIRO-SR). NIRO-SR is a checklist composed of two parts that provide itemised guidance on the preparation of a systematic review protocol for pre-registration (Part A) and reporting the review (Part B) in a reproducible and transparent manner. This paper, the tool, and an open repository (https://osf.io/f3brw) provide a comprehensive resource for those who aim to conduct a high quality, reproducible, and transparent systematic review of non-intervention studies.

Mucopolysaccharidosis Type I (MPS I) is a rare genetic lysosomal storage disease caused by a mutation of IDUA gene. IDUA codes for α-L-iduronidase (IDUA), a lysosomal hydrolase that degrades glycosaminoglycans (GAGs): heparan sulphate and dermatan sulphate. GAGs are structural and signalling molecules that have a crucial role in controlling a variety of cell functions and their interaction with the extracellular matrix. Because of GAG’s widespread action in cellular metabolism, MPS I is a progressive and disabling multisystemic disorder. Nowadays, the therapies available allowed patients to reach the adult life and the consequences of the disease in their reproductive system are mostly unknown. We aimed to investigate whether IDUA disruption influences sexual behaviour and sexual steroid production in male and female MPS I mice. We used 3 and 6-month-old male and 3-month-old female Idua+/_ and Idua-/- mice to evaluate typical rodent copulatory behaviours. In males we observed the frequency and latency of mounts, intromissions and ejaculations. In females, we evaluated the lordosis quotient. We also analysed the locomotor capacity of mice in the open field test, since mobility is essential for copulatory behaviour. We also quantified steroidal hormonal levels in plasmatic samples. We detected an increase in the latencies of intromissions in Idua-/- males when compared to Idua+/_. However, the number of intromissions was not statistically different between groups. No parameter of female sexual behaviour was statistically different between control and knockout females. In both sexes, we detected diminished mobility in Idua-/- mice. Plasma hormone levels did not differ between Idua+/_ and Idua-/- mice, both in males and females. Although the motor disability predicted to MPS I animals, we concluded that in the considered time point of MPS I progression studied, mice are able to perform sexual behaviour.

Single-case designs (SCDs) are used to evaluate the effects of interventions on individual participants. By repeatedly measuring participants under different conditions, SCD studies focus on individual effects rather than on group summaries. The main limitation of SCDs remains its generalisability to wider populations, reducing the relevance of their findings for practice and policy making. With this limitation in mind, methodological developments for synthesising SCD data from different studies that investigate the same research question have intensified in the past decades (e.g. multilevel modelling). However, these techniques are restricted to comparing two interventions at a time and can only incorporate evidence from studies that directly compare the two treatments of interest. These limitations could be addressed by using network meta-analysis that incorporates both direct and indirect evidence to simultaneously compare multiple interventions. Despite its potential, network meta-analytical techniques have yet to be applied to SCD data. Thus, in this paper, we argue that network meta-analysis can be a valuable tool to synthesise SCD data. We demonstrate the use of network meta-analysis in SCD data using a real dataset, and we conclude by reflecting on the challenges that SCD researchers might face when applying network meta-analysis methods to their data.