Waldman Irwin D, Lilienfeld Scott O
Department of Psychology, Emory University, 475 PAIS Building, 36 Eagle Row, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA.
Psychometrika. 2016 Mar;81(1):16-26. doi: 10.1007/s11336-015-9447-z.
We comment on Sijtsma's (2014) thought-provoking essay on how to minimize questionable research practices (QRPs) in psychology. We agree with Sijtsma that proactive measures to decrease the risk of QRPs will ultimately be more productive than efforts to target individual researchers and their work. In particular, we concur that encouraging researchers to make their data and research materials public is the best institutional antidote against QRPs, although we are concerned that Sijtsma's proposal to delegate more responsibility to statistical and methodological consultants could inadvertently reinforce the dichotomy between the substantive and statistical aspects of research. We also discuss sources of false-positive findings and replication failures in psychological research, and outline potential remedies for these problems. We conclude that replicability is the best metric of the minimization of QRPs and their adverse effects on psychological research.
我们对西茨马(2014年)那篇关于如何将心理学中可疑研究行为(QRPs)降至最低的发人深省的文章发表评论。我们赞同西茨马的观点,即采取积极措施降低QRPs风险最终会比针对个别研究人员及其工作的努力更有成效。特别是,我们同意鼓励研究人员公开其数据和研究材料是对抗QRPs的最佳制度解药,尽管我们担心西茨马将更多责任委托给统计和方法顾问的提议可能会无意中强化研究的实质性和统计性方面之间的二分法。我们还讨论了心理学研究中假阳性结果和重复失败的来源,并概述了针对这些问题的潜在补救措施。我们得出结论,可重复性是将QRPs及其对心理学研究的不利影响降至最低的最佳衡量标准。