52% Yes, a signiicant crisis 3% No, there is no crisis 7% Don't know 38% Yes, a slight crisis 38% Yes, a slight crisis 1,576 RESEARCHERS SURVEYED M ore than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproduc-ibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology 1 and cancer biology 2 , found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence. The results capture a confusing snapshot of attitudes around these issues, says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. "At the current time there is no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be. " But just recognizing that is a step forward, he says. "The next step may be identifying what is the problem and to get a consensus. "

Models postulating 2 distinct processing modes have been proposed in several topic areas within social and cognitive psychology. We advance a new conceptual model of the 2 processing modes. The structural basis of the new model is the idea, supported by psychological and neuropsychological evidence, that humans possess 2 memory systems. One system slowly learns general regularities, whereas the other can quickly form representations of unique or novel events. Associative retrieval or pattern completion in the slow-learning system elicited by a salient cue constitutes the effortless processing mode. The second processing mode is more conscious and effortful; it involves the intentional retrieval of explicit, symbolically represented rulesfrom either memory system and their use to guide processing. After presenting our model, we review existing dual-process models in several areas, emphasizing their similar assumptions of a quick, effortless processing mode that rests on well-learned prior associations and a second, more effortful processing mode that involves rule-based inferences and is employed only when people have both cognitive capacity and motivation. New insights and implications of the model for several topic areas are outlined.

The present meta-analysis integrated effect sizes from 95 non-overlapping studies (N=15,826) to summarize the relation between Hare Psychopathy Checklists and antisocial conduct. Whereas prior meta-analyses focused on specific subdomains of the literature, we used broad inclusion criteria, incorporating a diversity of samples, settings, methodologies, and outcomes in our analysis. Our broad perspective allowed us to identify general trends consistent across the entire literature and improved the power of our analyses. Results indicated that higher PCL Total, Factor 1 (F(1)), and Factor 2 (F(2)) scores were moderately associated with increased antisocial conduct. Study effect sizes were significantly moderated by the country in which the study was conducted, racial composition, gender composition, institutional setting, the type of information used to score psychopathy, and the independence of psychopathy and transgression assessments. However, multiple regression analyses indicated that the information used to assess psychopathy did not have a unique influence on effect sizes after accounting for the influence of other moderator variables. Furthermore, racial composition of the sample was related to the country in which the study was conducted, making it unclear whether one or both of these moderators influenced effect sizes. We provide potential explanations for the significant findings and discuss implications of the results for future research.

Despite many articles reporting the problems of dichotomizing continuous measures, researchers still commonly use this practice. The authors' purpose in this article was to understand the reasons that people still dichotomize and to determine whether any of these reasons are valid. They contacted 66 researchers who had published articles using dichotomized variables and obtained their justifications for dichotomization. They also contacted 53 authors of articles published in Psychological Methods and asked them to identify any situations in which they believed dichotomized indicators could perform better. Justifications provided by these two groups fell into three broad categories, which the authors explored both logically and with Monte Carlo simulations. Continuous indicators were superior in the majority of circumstances and never performed substantially worse than the dichotomized indicators, but the simulations did reveal specific situations in which dichotomized indicators performed as well as or better than the original continuous indictors. The authors also considered several justifications for dichotomization that did not lend themselves to simulation, but in each case they found compelling arguments to address these situations using techniques other than dichotomization.

OBJECTIVES To examine the relationships between changes from baseline to post-Resources for Enhancing Alzheimer's Caregiver Health (REACH) intervention in caregiver (CG) self-reported health, burden, and bother. DESIGN Randomized, multisite clinical trial. SETTING CG and care recipient (CR) homes in five U.S. cities. PARTICIPANTS Four hundred ninety-five dementia CG and CR dyads (169 Hispanic, 160 white, and 166 African American) receiving intervention and their controls. INTERVENTION CGs were assigned to the REACH intervention or a no-treatment control group. Intervention subjects received individual risk profiles and the REACH intervention through nine in-home and three telephone sessions over 6 months. Control subjects received two brief “check-in” telephone calls during this 6-month period. MEASUREMENTS The primary outcome was change in CG health status from baseline to after the intervention. Secondary outcomes were CG burden and bother after the intervention. RESULTS After the intervention, CGs reported better self-rated health, sleep quality, physical health, and emotional health, which was related to less burden and bother with their caregiving role than for CGs not receiving the intervention. Changes in depression appeared to mediate these relationships. Several racial and ethnic group differences existed in physical and emotional health, as well as in total frustration with caregiving, emotional burden, and CG-rated bother with CR's activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living at baseline and at follow-up, although differences between baseline and posttest did not vary according to race. CONCLUSION A structured, multicomponent skills training intervention that targeted CG self-care behaviors as one of five target areas, improved self-reported health status, and decreased burden and bother in racially and ethnically diverse CGs of people with dementia.