The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis

J.M. Wicherts, D. Borsboom, J. Kats, D. Molenaar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

The origin of the present comment lies in a failed attempt to obtain, through e-mailed requests, data reported in 141 empirical articles recently published by the American Psychological Association (APA). Our original aim was to reanalyze these data sets to assess the robustness of the research findings to outliers. We never got that far. In June 2005, we contacted the corresponding author of every article that appeared in the last two 2004 issues of four major APA journals. Because their articles had been published in APA journals, we were certain that all of the authors had signed the APA Certification of Compliance With APA Ethical Principles, which includes the principle on sharing data for reanalysis. Unfortunately, 6 months later, after writing more than 400 e-mails--and sending some corresponding authors detailed descriptions of our study aims, approvals of our ethical committee, signed assurances not to share data with others, and even our full resumes-we ended up with a meager 38 positive reactions and the actual data sets from 64 studies (25.7% of the total number of 249 data sets). This means that 73% of the authors did not share their data.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)726-728
Number of pages3
JournalAmerican Psychologist
Volume61
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2006
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Information Dissemination
Compliance

Cite this

Wicherts, J.M. ; Borsboom, D. ; Kats, J. ; Molenaar, D. / The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. In: American Psychologist. 2006 ; Vol. 61, No. 7. pp. 726-728.
@article{84cc7a5cef944ca88cabdb91cba4f4c2,
title = "The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis",
abstract = "The origin of the present comment lies in a failed attempt to obtain, through e-mailed requests, data reported in 141 empirical articles recently published by the American Psychological Association (APA). Our original aim was to reanalyze these data sets to assess the robustness of the research findings to outliers. We never got that far. In June 2005, we contacted the corresponding author of every article that appeared in the last two 2004 issues of four major APA journals. Because their articles had been published in APA journals, we were certain that all of the authors had signed the APA Certification of Compliance With APA Ethical Principles, which includes the principle on sharing data for reanalysis. Unfortunately, 6 months later, after writing more than 400 e-mails--and sending some corresponding authors detailed descriptions of our study aims, approvals of our ethical committee, signed assurances not to share data with others, and even our full resumes-we ended up with a meager 38 positive reactions and the actual data sets from 64 studies (25.7{\%} of the total number of 249 data sets). This means that 73{\%} of the authors did not share their data.",
author = "J.M. Wicherts and D. Borsboom and J. Kats and D. Molenaar",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.726",
language = "English",
volume = "61",
pages = "726--728",
journal = "American Psychologist",
issn = "0003-066X",
publisher = "American Psychological Association",
number = "7",

}

The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. / Wicherts, J.M.; Borsboom, D.; Kats, J.; Molenaar, D.

In: American Psychologist, Vol. 61, No. 7, 2006, p. 726-728.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis

AU - Wicherts, J.M.

AU - Borsboom, D.

AU - Kats, J.

AU - Molenaar, D.

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - The origin of the present comment lies in a failed attempt to obtain, through e-mailed requests, data reported in 141 empirical articles recently published by the American Psychological Association (APA). Our original aim was to reanalyze these data sets to assess the robustness of the research findings to outliers. We never got that far. In June 2005, we contacted the corresponding author of every article that appeared in the last two 2004 issues of four major APA journals. Because their articles had been published in APA journals, we were certain that all of the authors had signed the APA Certification of Compliance With APA Ethical Principles, which includes the principle on sharing data for reanalysis. Unfortunately, 6 months later, after writing more than 400 e-mails--and sending some corresponding authors detailed descriptions of our study aims, approvals of our ethical committee, signed assurances not to share data with others, and even our full resumes-we ended up with a meager 38 positive reactions and the actual data sets from 64 studies (25.7% of the total number of 249 data sets). This means that 73% of the authors did not share their data.

AB - The origin of the present comment lies in a failed attempt to obtain, through e-mailed requests, data reported in 141 empirical articles recently published by the American Psychological Association (APA). Our original aim was to reanalyze these data sets to assess the robustness of the research findings to outliers. We never got that far. In June 2005, we contacted the corresponding author of every article that appeared in the last two 2004 issues of four major APA journals. Because their articles had been published in APA journals, we were certain that all of the authors had signed the APA Certification of Compliance With APA Ethical Principles, which includes the principle on sharing data for reanalysis. Unfortunately, 6 months later, after writing more than 400 e-mails--and sending some corresponding authors detailed descriptions of our study aims, approvals of our ethical committee, signed assurances not to share data with others, and even our full resumes-we ended up with a meager 38 positive reactions and the actual data sets from 64 studies (25.7% of the total number of 249 data sets). This means that 73% of the authors did not share their data.

U2 - 10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.726

DO - 10.1037/0003-066X.61.7.726

M3 - Article

VL - 61

SP - 726

EP - 728

JO - American Psychologist

JF - American Psychologist

SN - 0003-066X

IS - 7

ER -