Replication Research: A Purposeful Occupation Worth Repeating

Abstract

It is common for researchers to request at the end of their published studies, the urgency for further studies to be completed. Unfortunately there are very few published studies that have replicated original studies. The purpose of this article is to provide a framework for understanding issues related to replication research that will assist occupational therapy researchers, clinicians, managers, students and educators to realize the importance of implementing and publishing replication research to establish evidence-based practice. Various areas related to replication research are explored. In addition, a computerized literature search using the search term 'replication' was completed. Only four articles published between 1982-1998 were discovered. This article concludes with recommendations to ensure replication studies are included in the occupational therapy literature and utilized in clinical practice.

Balancing Challenges and Facilitating Factors when Implementing Client-Centred Collaboration in a Mental Health Setting

“…The specific method was framed within replication research, which is valued in health-related investigations for its potential to validate conceptual frameworks, classify specific phenomena and support relationships between concepts (Klein et al 2000). This approach also enables researchers to build on the work of others who have outlined their methods in sufficient detail to allow this replication to occur (Stein and Cutler 2000).…”

Systematic reviewers' perspectives on replication of systematic reviews: A survey

“…This can be attributed to the persistent belief that replication is seen as “non‐original” and not generating new evidence, and thus less valued than original reviews [25]. This sentiment has been widely documented among researchers, funding agencies, and journal editors, regardless of the type of research being replicated [24, 25, 31–34]. Furthermore, this belief tends to favor replication studies that generate new findings or reconcile conflicting results but discriminates against replication studies with confirmatory results [8, 29, 35].…”

“…This can be attributed to the persistent belief that replication is seen as "non-original" and not generating new evidence, and thus less valued than original reviews [25]. This sentiment has been widely documented among researchers, funding agencies, and journal editors, regardless of the type of research being replicated [24,25,[31][32][33][34].…”

The effect of training on question formulation among public health practitioners: results from a randomized controlled trial

“…The observed trends toward increased question frequency and sophistication further suggest validation of broadscale collaborative training initiatives involving diverse members of the public workforce over the past decade [50][51][52][53], because training apparently leads to an essential prerequisite condition of information-seeking behavior. Yet, these results need to be validated further through scientific replication [54][55][56][57][58] by launching similar experimental studies intended to better understand which types of training designs are most effective and how such training can be structured to prompt increased sophistication of participants' subsequent questions [59]. Future investigators may employ a prospective cohort study to aid in predicting the effect of training on participants' anticipated desire to pursue answers to their questions.…”