Voodoo Correlations Are Everywhere-Not Only in Neuroscience
Voodoo Correlations Are Everywhere-Not Only in Neuroscience
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1745691611400237
复制
发表时间：
2011-03-01
影响因子：
12.6
通讯作者：
Fiedler, Klaus
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fiedler, Klaus
最近《心理科学展望》中的一组文章讨论了当故意选择测量点（体素）以最大化标准相关性时，大脑测量和行为标准之间的夸大相关性（目标文章是 Vul、Harris、Winkielman 和 Pashler，2009）。然而，更仔细的检查表明，这个问题只是更广泛的方法论问题的一个特殊症状，该问题是所有范式研究的特征，而不仅仅是神经科学。研究人员不仅选择体素来扩大效应大小，还选择刺激、任务设置、有利的边界条件、因变量和自变量、治疗水平、调节因子、中介因子和多个参数设置，以使经验现象变得最大程度可见和稳定。一般来说，范例可以理解为产生理想化、夸大效果的传统设置。尽管代表性设计的可行性受到限制，但可行的补救措施在于重新定位范式研究，从强大效应大小的可见性转向真正的有效性和科学审查。
A recent set of articles in Perspectives on Psychological Science discussed inflated correlations between brain measures and behavioral criteria when measurement points (voxels) are deliberately selected to maximize criterion correlations (the target article was Vul, Harris, Winkielman, & Pashler, 2009). However, closer inspection reveals that this problem is only a special symptom of a broader methodological problem that characterizes all paradigmatic research, not just neuroscience. Researchers not only select voxels to inflate effect size, they also select stimuli, task settings, favorable boundary conditions, dependent variables and independent variables, treatment levels, moderators, mediators, and multiple parameter settings in such a way that empirical phenomena become maximally visible and stable. In general, paradigms can be understood as conventional setups for producing idealized, inflated effects. Although the feasibility of representative designs is restricted, a viable remedy lies in a reorientation of paradigmatic research from the visibility of strong effect sizes to genuine validity and scientific scrutiny.