Psychotherapy Researchers: Reported Misbehaviors and Opinions

Braun, M; Roussos, Andrés

doi:10.1525/jer.2012.7.5.25

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(17 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After exceeding the specified cut-off date, we received 472 responses, giving a total response percentage of 39.20%. This response rate is generally consistent with -or even slightly higher than -previous relevant studies (Banks et al, 2016;Bedeian et al, 2010;Braun & Roussos, 2012;John et al, 2012). We analyzed our data to detect non-response bias (Fulton, 2018) by comparing the two response waves using the independent t-test.…”

Section: Sample and Data Collectionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…We opted for business scholars rather than students because scholars have more experience with the process of research and publication. This position is aligned with previous studies conducted by Bedeian et al (2010), John et al (2012), Braun and Roussos (2012), Banks et al (2016) and Motyl et al (2017). For details on the survey and the sampling frame, see Appendix A in the supplementary material, available online.…”

Section: Sample and Data Collectionsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…The problem arises from a decision taken within individual scholars themselves to engage in misconduct, and ethics and norms are thereby violated. In this regard, developing ethical standards for publication and emphasizing their importance to all faculty members and researchers is a good solution to minimize this issue (Bosco et al, 2016;Braun & Roussos, 2012;O'Boyle et al, 2017). In addition, we also recommend that each university and related institution develop a whistleblowing reporting system.…”

Section: Recommendations For Improvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Crossing the Red Line? Empirical Evidence and Useful Recommendations on Questionable Research Practices among Business Scholars

Latan¹,

Jabbour

et al. 2021

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic leaders in management from all over the world—including recent calls by the Academy of Management Shaw (Academy of Management Journal 60(3): 819–822, 2017)—have urged further research into the extent and use of questionable research practices (QRPs). In order to provide empirical evidence on the topic of QRPs, this work presents two linked studies. Study 1 determines the level of use of QRPs based on self-admission rates and estimated prevalence among business scholars in Indonesia. It was determined that if the level of QRP use identified in Study 1 was quite high, Study 2 would be conducted to follow-up on this result, and this was indeed the case. Study 2 examines the factors that encourage and discourage the use of QRPs in the sample analyzed. The main research findings are as follows: (a) in Study 1, we found the self-admission rates and estimated prevalence of business scholars’ involvement in QRPs to be quite high when compared with studies conducted in other countries and (b) in Study 2, we found pressure for publication from universities, fear of rejection of manuscripts, meeting the expectations of reviewers, and available rewards to be the main reasons for the use of QRPs in Indonesia, whereas (c) formal sanctions and prevention efforts are factors that discourage QRPs. Recommendations for stakeholders (in this case, reviewers, editors, funders, supervisors, chancellors and others) are also provided in order to reduce the use of QRPs.

show abstract

Section: Sample and Data Collectionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Sample and Data Collectionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Recommendations For Improvementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Crossing the Red Line? Empirical Evidence and Useful Recommendations on Questionable Research Practices among Business Scholars

Latan¹,

Jabbour

et al. 2021

J Bus Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This reflects that scientific misconduct is not always detected. Yet, scientific misconduct was prevalent across a variety of geographic regions (Agnoli et al, 2017; Braun & Roussos, 2012; John et al, 2012) and in almost all psychological subfields.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Misconduct in Psychology

Stricker

Günther

2019

Zeitschrift für Psychologie

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Spectacular cases of scientific misconduct have contributed to concerns about the validity of published results in psychology. In our systematic review, we identified 16 studies reporting prevalence estimates of scientific misconduct and questionable research practices (QRPs) in psychological research. Estimates from these studies varied due to differences in methods and scope. Unlike other disciplines, there was no reliable lower bound prevalence estimate of scientific misconduct based on identified cases available for psychology. Thus, we conducted an additional empirical investigation on the basis of retractions in the database PsycINFO. Our analyses showed that 0.82 per 10,000 journal articles in psychology were retracted due to scientific misconduct. Between the late 1990s and 2012, there was a steep increase. Articles retracted due to scientific misconduct were identified in 20 out of 22 PsycINFO subfields. These results show that measures aiming to reduce scientific misconduct should be promoted equally across all psychological subfields.

show abstract

“…Although several survey studies (Agnoli et al, 2017; Braun & Roussos, 2012; Fanelli, 2009; Fiedler & Schwarz, 2016; Fox et al, 2019; John et al, 2012; LeBel et al, 2013) have now been conducted asking psychology researchers to report their engagement in QRPs, the results from these surveys are less than conclusive. For example, estimates of engaging in at least one QRP have ranged from 9.5% of participants in one article (Fanelli, 2009) to 94.0% in another (John et al, 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Questionable research practices among faculty and students in APA-accredited clinical and counseling psychology doctoral programs.

Swift¹,

Christopherson²,

Bird³

et al. 2022

Training and Education in Professional Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines self-reported engagement in questionable research practices (QRPs) by faculty (N ϭ 164) and students (N ϭ 110) in American Psychological Association-accredited clinical and counseling psychology doctoral programs. Both faculty and student participants were asked to report their own engagement as well as the engagement of their graduate school mentor in 12 QRPs. Nearly 65% of the faculty participants and 50% of the student participants reported engaging in at least one QRP. The most commonly reported QRP was selectively reporting findings that worked (35% for faculty, 26% for students), and the least commonly admitted was falsifying data (0% for faculty, 1% for students). Total number of QRPs engaged in was significantly predicted by knowledge of mentor engagement in QRPs (explaining 34% of the variance for faculty and 19% of the variance for students), but it was not predicted by degree year, number of publications, or self-reported researcher reputation. These results suggest that QRPs do occur in the field but perhaps at lower levels than had previously been thought. They also suggest that additional training in QRPs is needed. Training implications and future directions are discussed. Public Significance StatementThis study surveyed faculty and students in clinical and counseling psychology doctoral programs about their engagement in questionable research practices. The majority of participants reported engaging in at least one questionable research practice, and self-engagement was significantly associated with knowledge of mentor engagement. These results have important training implications for young scholars who aim to produce reliable and accurate research.

show abstract

Psychotherapy Researchers: Reported Misbehaviors and Opinions

Cited by 9 publications

References 9 publications

Crossing the Red Line? Empirical Evidence and Useful Recommendations on Questionable Research Practices among Business Scholars

Crossing the Red Line? Empirical Evidence and Useful Recommendations on Questionable Research Practices among Business Scholars

Scientific Misconduct in Psychology

Questionable research practices among faculty and students in APA-accredited clinical and counseling psychology doctoral programs.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About