Department of Statistics.
Psychol Methods. 2019 Oct;24(5):557-570. doi: 10.1037/met0000189. Epub 2018 Aug 2.
Formal empirical assessments of replication have recently become more prominent in several areas of science, including psychology. These assessments have used different statistical approaches to determine if a finding has been replicated. The purpose of this article is to provide several alternative conceptual frameworks that lead to different statistical analyses to test hypotheses about replication. All of these analyses are based on statistical methods used in meta-analysis. The differences among the methods described involve whether the burden of proof is placed on replication or nonreplication, whether replication is exact or allows for a small amount of "negligible heterogeneity," and whether the studies observed are assumed to be fixed (constituting the entire body of relevant evidence) or are a sample from a universe of possibly relevant studies. The statistical power of each of these tests is computed and shown to be low in many cases, raising issues of the interpretability of tests for replication. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
最近，实证研究在包括心理学在内的多个科学领域中变得越来越重要。这些评估使用了不同的统计方法来确定一个发现是否已经被复制。本文的目的是提供几个不同的概念框架，这些框架会导致不同的统计分析，从而检验关于复制的假设。所有这些分析都基于元分析中使用的统计方法。所描述的方法之间的差异涉及到证明责任是放在复制还是非复制上，复制是否精确还是允许有少量的“可忽略的异质性”，以及观察到的研究是被假定为固定的（构成相关证据的全部）还是来自可能相关的研究的样本。计算了每种测试的统计功效，并发现在许多情况下都很低，这引发了对复制测试的可解释性问题。（心理学文摘数据库记录（c）2019 APA，保留所有权利）。
