Agnoli Franca, Wicherts Jelte M, Veldkamp Coosje L S, Albiero Paolo, Cubelli Roberto
Department of Developmental Psychology and Socialization, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2017 Mar 15;12(3):e0172792. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172792. eCollection 2017.
A survey in the United States revealed that an alarmingly large percentage of university psychologists admitted having used questionable research practices that can contaminate the research literature with false positive and biased findings. We conducted a replication of this study among Italian research psychologists to investigate whether these findings generalize to other countries. All the original materials were translated into Italian, and members of the Italian Association of Psychology were invited to participate via an online survey. The percentages of Italian psychologists who admitted to having used ten questionable research practices were similar to the results obtained in the United States although there were small but significant differences in self-admission rates for some QRPs. Nearly all researchers (88%) admitted using at least one of the practices, and researchers generally considered a practice possibly defensible if they admitted using it, but Italian researchers were much less likely than US researchers to consider a practice defensible. Participants' estimates of the percentage of researchers who have used these practices were greater than the self-admission rates, and participants estimated that researchers would be unlikely to admit it. In written responses, participants argued that some of these practices are not questionable and they have used some practices because reviewers and journals demand it. The similarity of results obtained in the United States, this study, and a related study conducted in Germany suggest that adoption of these practices is an international phenomenon and is likely due to systemic features of the international research and publication processes.
美国的一项调查显示,大学心理学家中承认使用过可疑研究方法的比例高得惊人,这些方法可能会让虚假阳性和有偏差的研究结果充斥于研究文献中。我们在意大利研究心理学家中重复了这项研究,以调查这些结果是否适用于其他国家。所有原始材料都被翻译成了意大利语,并通过在线调查邀请意大利心理学会的成员参与。承认使用过十种可疑研究方法的意大利心理学家的比例与在美国获得的结果相似,尽管在一些可疑研究方法的自我承认率上存在虽小但显著的差异。几乎所有研究人员(88%)都承认至少使用过其中一种方法,并且研究人员如果承认使用了某种方法,通常会认为该方法可能有其合理性,但意大利研究人员认为某种方法合理的可能性远低于美国研究人员。参与者对使用过这些方法的研究人员比例的估计高于自我承认率,并且参与者估计研究人员不太可能承认这一点。在书面回复中,参与者认为其中一些方法并无问题,而且他们使用一些方法是因为审稿人和期刊有这样的要求。在美国、本研究以及在德国进行的一项相关研究中所获得的结果的相似性表明,采用这些方法是一种国际现象,并且很可能是由于国际研究和出版过程的系统性特征所致。