Assessing and improving robustness of psychological research findings in four steps

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterScientific

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationClinical psychology and questionable research practices
EditorsWilliam O'Donohue, Akihiko Masuda, Scott Lilienfeld
PublisherSpringer
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 2021

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Assessing and improving robustness of psychological research findings in four steps'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this