1University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2014 May;18(2):107-18. doi: 10.1177/1088868313496330. Epub 2013 Aug 21.
Recent studies have indicated that research practices in psychology may be susceptible to factors that increase false-positive rates, raising concerns about the possible prevalence of false-positive findings. The present article discusses several practices that may run counter to the inflation of false-positive rates. Taking these practices into account would lead to a more balanced view on the false-positive issue. Specifically, we argue that an inflation of false-positive rates would diminish, sometimes to a substantial degree, when researchers (a) have explicit a priori theoretical hypotheses, (b) include multiple replication studies in a single paper, and (c) collect additional data based on observed results. We report findings from simulation studies and statistical evidence that support these arguments. Being aware of these preventive factors allows researchers not to overestimate the pervasiveness of false-positives in psychology and to gauge the susceptibility of a paper to possible false-positives in practical and fair ways.
最近的研究表明，心理学研究实践可能容易受到增加假阳性率的因素的影响，这引发了对可能普遍存在假阳性发现的担忧。本文讨论了一些可能与假阳性率膨胀相悖的实践。考虑到这些实践，人们对假阳性问题的看法会更加平衡。具体来说，我们认为，当研究人员（a）有明确的先验理论假设，（b）在一篇论文中包含多个重复研究，以及（c）根据观察结果收集额外的数据时，假阳性率的膨胀会在一定程度上减少。我们报告了模拟研究和统计证据的结果，这些结果支持了这些观点。了解这些预防因素可以使研究人员不会高估心理学中假阳性的普遍性，并以实际和公平的方式评估一篇论文对可能的假阳性的敏感性。
