Tracks of marten (Martes americana), lynx (Felis lynx), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), ermine (Mustela erminea), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), and red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) were censused from 1980 to 1985 on 1-km transects in uncut stands and on eight sites that had been clear-cut between 1 and 33 years ago, in boreal mixedwood habitat near Manitouwadge, Ontario. Marten tracks were more common in uncut areas than in younger stands. Lynx tracks were most abundant on sites that were logged 20–30 years ago and were absent in uncut areas and stands less than 5 years old. Counts of red fox tracks were lowest in uncut stands and showed no consistent pattern among years of our survey with respect to stand age in second-growth forest. Hare tracks were most abundant in 20- and 30-year-old stands, and least abundant in stands less than 5 years old. Red squirrels were most common in uncut areas, but similar high values were also found in 20- and 30-year-old sites during 3 years when populations in the area were depressed. No selection of stands by age was seen for ermine. Numbers of tracks were significantly correlated with live captures of marten, hare, and red squirrels. Our results suggested that track abundance can be used as an index of habitat preferences and population trends. Highest counts were achieved in December for marten, red squirrel, and ermine, likely as a result of several types of over-winter mortality and inactivity in cold weather, which may have reduced counts in January and March. As a result of high and nonhomogeneous variance among transects and years, nonparametric statistical analysis was required. Transect length for fox and lynx should be substantially longer than 1 km (probably 3–5 km) to avoid numerous zero results.
Currently, there is little guidance for navigating measurement challenges that threaten construct validity in replication research. To identify common challenges and ultimately strengthen replication research, we conducted a systematic review of the measures used in the 100 original and replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). Results indicate that it was common for scales used in the original studies to have little or no validity evidence. Our systematic review demonstrates and corroborates evidence that issues of construct validity are sorely neglected in original and replicated research. We identify four measurement challenges replicators are likely to face: a lack of essential measurement information, a lack of validity evidence, measurement differences, and translation. Next, we offer solutions for addressing these challenges that will improve measurement practices in original and replication research. Finally, we close with a discussion of the need to develop measurement methodologies for the next generation of replication research.
The reporting and interpretation of effect sizes is often promoted as a panacea for the ramifications of institutionalized statistical rituals associated with the null-hypothesis significance test. Mechanical objectivity—conflating the use of a method with the obtainment of truth—is a useful theoretical tool for understanding the possible failure of effect size reporting ( Porter, 1995 ). This article helps elucidate the ouroboros of psychological methodology. This is the cycle of improved tools to produce trustworthy knowledge, leading to their institutionalization and adoption as forms of thinking, leading to methodologists eventually admonishing researchers for relying too heavily on rituals, finally leading to the production of more new improved quantitative tools that may follow along this circular path. Despite many critiques and warnings, research psychologists’ superficial adoption of effect sizes might preclude expert interpretation much like in the null-hypothesis significance test as widely received. One solution to this situation is bottom-up: promoting a balance of mechanical objectivity and expertise in the teaching of methods and research. This would require the acceptance and encouragement of expert interpretation within psychological science.
In a recent issue of Theory & Psychology, Robinson, Danziger, and Teo raise a number of important questions about the current role of historiography in psychology. We concur that there have been genuine costs to the historian in psychology adopting the disciplinary norms and epistemic virtues of the professional historian. Building on recent developments in historiography, we suggest a number of avenues for exploring the relationship between history and psychology. Taken together they illustrate the possibilities of an “eventful psychology” attentive to historical time.
Recently, attention has been drawn toward an overlooked and nearly forgotten personality type: the ambivert. This paper presents a genealogy of the ambivert, locating the various contexts it traversed in order to highlight the ways in which these places and times have interacted and changed-ultimately elucidating our current situation. Proposed by Edmund S. Conklin in 1923, the ambivert only was meant for normal persons in between the introvert and extravert extremes. Although the ambivert could have been taken up by early personality psychologists who were transitioning from the study of the abnormal to the normal, it largely failed to gain traction. Whether among psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, or applied and personality psychologists, the ambivert was personality non grata. It was only within the context of Eysenck's integrative view of types and traits that the ambivert marginally persisted up to the present day and is now the focus of sales management and popular psychology.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.