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

Abstract

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.

Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science

“…Notes: Year is the effective year of the estimate, which is the year of the survey end date if reported or otherwise the year of the latest possible date based on available information (e.g., initial preprint date, journal submission date). The exact descriptions of behaviors follow closely, but differ somewhat in Fiedler & Schwarz, 2016;Héroux et al, 2017;Swift et al, 2020;Wolff et al, 2018. The question stems in most studies asked researchers whether they had ever engaged in the focal behavior, fewer studies asked about frequency (Janke et al, 2019;Makel et al, 2019;Motyl et al, 2017), specific projects (Bosco et al, 2016;Krishna & Peter, 2018;Wolff et al, 2018) or over the past year (Fox et al, 2018) S5 QRP behavior Description, with substantive variations in wording across studies noted At least one For studies that asked psychologists about whether they had ever engaged in the ten behaviors from , the proportion that reported engaging in at least one.…”

“…Deciding whether to collect more data after looking to see whether the results were significant. In Fielder and Schwarz (2016) and Swift (2020) deciding whether to collect more data in order to render non-significant results significant.…”

“…Stopping collecting data earlier than planned because one found the result that one had been looking for. In Fielder and Schwarz (2016) and Swift (2020): stopping collecting data earlier than planned because the expected results concerning a specific finding were already obtained.…”

Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science

“…Notes: Year is the effective year of the estimate, which is the year of the survey end date if reported or otherwise the year of the latest possible date based on available information (e.g., initial preprint date, journal submission date). The exact descriptions of behaviors follow (John et al, 2012) closely, but differ somewhat in Fiedler & Schwarz, 2016;Héroux et al, 2017;Swift et al, 2020;Wolff et al, 2018. The question stems in most studies asked researchers whether they had ever engaged in the focal behavior, fewer studies asked about frequency (Janke et al, 2019;Makel et al, 2019;Motyl et al, 2017), specific projects (Bosco et al, 2016;Krishna & Peter, 2018;Wolff et al, 2018) or over the past year (Fox et al, 2018).…”

“…In a paper, failing to report all of a study's dependent variables. In Fielder and Schwarz (2016) and Swift (2020), asked about failing to report those that are relevant for a finding.…”