Increasing evidence indicates that many published findings in psychology may be overestimated or even false. An often-heard response to this “replication crisis” is to replicate more: replication studies should weed out false positives over time and increase robustness of psychological science. However, replications take time and money – resources that are often scarce. In this chapter, I propose an efficient alternative strategy: a four-step robustness check that first focuses on verifying reported numbers through reanalysis before replicating studies in a new sample.
|Title of host publication||Clinical psychology and questionable research practices|
|Editors||William O'Donohue, Akihiko Masuda, Scott Lilienfeld|
|Publication status||Accepted/In press - 2021|