Metastudies for robust tests of theory

86Citations
Citations of this article
144Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

We describe and demonstrate an empirical strategy useful for discovering and replicating empirical effects in psychological science. The method involves the design of a metastudy, in which many independent experimental variables—that May be moderators of an empirical effect—are indiscriminately randomized. Radical randomization yields rich datasets that can be used to test the robustness of an empirical claim to some of the vagaries and idiosyncrasies of experimental protocols and enhances the generalizability of these claims. The strategy is made feasible by advances in hierarchical Bayesian modeling that allow for the pooling of information across unlike experiments and designs and is proposed here as a gold standard for replication research and exploratory research. The practical feasibility of the strategy is demonstrated with a replication of a study on subliminal priming.

References Powered by Scopus

The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results

6423Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research

1695Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Editors' Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?

1036Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

The generalizability crisis

396Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science

360Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Making replication mainstream

306Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Baribault, B., Donkin, C., Little, D. R., Trueblood, J. S., Oravecz, Z., Van Ravenzwaaij, D., … Vandekerckhove, J. (2018). Metastudies for robust tests of theory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(11), 2607–2612. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708285114

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 65

62%

Researcher 23

22%

Professor / Associate Prof. 15

14%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

2%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 67

75%

Neuroscience 9

10%

Social Sciences 7

8%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6

7%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 2
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 32

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free