2015
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-015-0664-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013)

Abstract: This study documents reporting errors in a sample of over 250,000 p-values reported in eight major psychology journals from 1985 until 2013, using the new R package “statcheck.” statcheck retrieved null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST) results from over half of the articles from this period. In line with earlier research, we found that half of all published psychology papers that use NHST contained at least one p-value that was inconsistent with its test statistic and degrees of freedom. One in eight pap… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

16
534
7
7

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 421 publications
(619 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
(64 reference statements)
16
534
7
7
Order By: Relevance
“…This can be an issue if multiple settings can be justified and/or if some settings leading to significant outcomes are actually less justified than alternative settings. Publishing scripts will also provide more information on potential statistical errors (Bakker and Wicherts, 2001;Nuijten et al, 2016).…”
Section: Publish All Analysis Scripts With Analysis Settingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This can be an issue if multiple settings can be justified and/or if some settings leading to significant outcomes are actually less justified than alternative settings. Publishing scripts will also provide more information on potential statistical errors (Bakker and Wicherts, 2001;Nuijten et al, 2016).…”
Section: Publish All Analysis Scripts With Analysis Settingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A manual validity check for statcheck proved that the software is valid for extracting APA style reported test results [1]. However, it does not extract results that are not in line with what the APA prescribes.…”
Section: Usage Notesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…typically .05; [Nuijten, Hartgerink, van Assen, Epskamp, & Wicherts, 2015]), H 0 is rejected and H 1 is accepted. Table 1 summarizes the four possible situations that can occur in NHST.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This overemphasis is substantiated by the finding that more than 90% of results in the psychological literature are statistically significant (Open Science Collaboration, 2015;Sterling, Rosenbaum, & Weinkam, 1995;Sterling, 1959) despite low statistical power due to small sample sizes (Cohen, 1962;Sedlmeier, & Gigerenzer, 1989;Marszalek, Barber, Kohlhart, & Holmes, 2011;Bakker, van Dijk, & Wicherts, 2012). Consequently, publications have become biased by overrepresenting statistically significant results (Greenwald, 1975), which generally results in effect size overestimation in both individual studies (Nuijten, Hartgerink, van Assen, Epskamp, & Wicherts, 2015) and meta-analyses (van Assen, van Aert, & Wicherts, 2015;Lane, & Dunlap, 1978;Rothstein, Sutton, & Borenstein, 2005;Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). The overemphasis on statistically significant effects has been accompanied by questionable research practices (QRPs; John, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2012) such as erroneously rounding p-values towards significance, which for example occurred for 13.8% of all p-values reported as "p = .05" in articles from eight major psychology journals in the period 1985-2013 (Hartgerink, van Aert, Nuijten, Wicherts, & van Assen, 2016).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%