Replication and Robustness in Developmental Research

Replication and Robustness in Developmental Research
复制标题

DOI:
10.1037/a0037996
复制
发表时间:
2014-11-01
影响因子:
4
通讯作者:
Dowsett, Chantelle J.
Dowsett, Chantelle J.
中科院分区:
心理学2区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Duncan, Greg J.;Engel, Mimi;Dowsett, Chantelle J.

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

复制和鲁棒性检查是科学方法的关键要素,也是许多学科的主要内容。然而,发展心理学的主要期刊很少包括由不同研究者进行的先前研究的明确复制,并且很少要求作者在他们的文章或在线附录中建立他们的关键结果在估计方法,数据集和人口统计学亚组中是稳健的。这篇文章提出了优先考虑显式复制,特别是发展心理学中的研究内鲁棒性检查的情况。它提供了发展研究中效应量变化的证据,并记录了发展心理学和姐妹行为科学应用经济学期刊样本中截然不同的复制和稳健性检查实践。我们的目标不是要表明任何一种行为科学都垄断了最佳实践,而是要表明来自相关学科的期刊如何解决所有社会和行为科学共同关注的复制和普遍性问题。我们提供建议,促进研究生培训的复制和健壮性检查方法和编辑政策,鼓励这些做法。虽然我们的一些建议可能会改变发展研究文章的形式和内容,但我们认为,它们将为该领域带来可观的科学效益。
Replications and robustness checks are key elements of the scientific method and a staple in many disciplines. However, leading journals in developmental psychology rarely include explicit replications of prior research conducted by different investigators, and few require authors to establish in their articles or online appendices that their key results are robust across estimation methods, data sets, and demographic subgroups. This article makes the case for prioritizing both explicit replications and, especially, within-study robustness checks in developmental psychology. It provides evidence on variation in effect sizes in developmental studies and documents strikingly different replication and robustness-checking practices in a sample of journals in developmental psychology and a sister behavioral science-applied economics. Our goal is not to show that any one behavioral science has a monopoly on best practices, but rather to show how journals from a related discipline address vital concerns of replication and generalizability shared by all social and behavioral sciences. We provide recommendations for promoting graduate training in replication and robustness-checking methods and for editorial policies that encourage these practices. Although some of our recommendations may shift the form and substance of developmental research articles, we argue that they would generate considerable scientific benefits for the field.