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. "

No abstract

No abstract

In this article, we describe a recent development in the analysis of attrition: using classification and regression trees (CART) and random forest methods to generate inverse sampling weights. These flexible machine learning techniques have the potential to capture complex nonlinear, interactive selection models, yet to our knowledge, their performance in the missing data analysis context has never been evaluated. To assess the potential benefits of these methods, we compare their performance with commonly employed multiple imputation and complete case techniques in 2 simulations. These initial results suggest that weights computed from pruned CART analyses performed well in terms of both bias and efficiency when compared with other methods. We discuss the implications of these findings for applied researchers.

The present paper focuses on the relationship between latent change score (LCS) and autoregressive cross-lagged (ARCL) factor models in longitudinal designs. These models originated from different theoretical traditions for different analytic purposes, yet they share similar mathematical forms. In this paper, we elucidate the mathematical relationship between these models and show that the LCS model is reduced to the ARCL model when fixed effects are assumed in the slope factor scores. Additionally, we provide an applied example using height and weight data from a gerontological study. Throughout the example, we emphasize caution in choosing which model (ARCL or LCS) to apply due to the risk of obtaining misleading results concerning the presence and direction of causal precedence between two variables. We suggest approaching model specification not only by comparing estimates and fit indices between the LCS and ARCL models (as well as other models) but also by giving appropriate weight to substantive and theoretical considerations, such as assessing the justifiability of the assumption of random effects in the slope factor scores.