Do Research Literatures Give Correct Answers?
Do Research Literatures Give Correct Answers?
复制标题
研究文献给出正确答案吗？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ryan M. Sweeny
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
G. Howard;M. Y. Lau;S. Maxwell;André Venter;Rae Lundy;Ryan M. Sweeny
坚持正确设计的研究的理由是确保构建不受任何形式偏见影响的研究文献。但是，一旦建立了文献，它给出的任何答案（通常是通过荟萃分析）就被认为是有效的。当存在重大关系的情况下，而无效结果的含义尚不清楚，我们最喜欢的统计技术的结果是最好的。因此，重大发现更有可能发表。该文件抽屉问题已知多年了。但是，文件抽屉对研究文献的影响从未经过经验探查。描述了一种新方法，该方法测试了文件抽屉对研究文献的影响。提出了四个单独的心理学研究文献中文件抽屉的结果。
The rationale for insisting on properly designed studies is to ensure the construction of research literatures that are not influenced by biases of any sort. Once a literature is established, however, whatever answers it gives (usually via meta-analysis) are accepted as valid. The results of our favored statistical techniques are understood best when significant relationships are present while the meaning of null results are unclear. Thus, significant findings are more likely to be published. This file drawer problem has been known for many years. However, the effect that the file drawer has on research literatures has never been probed empirically. A new method is described that tests the impact a file drawer has on a research literature. The results of the file drawer on four separate psychological research literatures are presented.