IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/9amhe.html

Some searches may not work properly. We apologize for the inconvenience.

   My bibliography  Save this paper

More Reasons Why Replication Is A Difficult Issue

Author

Listed:
  • Wilcox, Rand R.
  • Rousselet, Guillaume A

    (University of Glasgow)

Abstract

Many issues complicate efforts to replicate studies, including concerns about models. Hundreds of papers published over the last sixty years make it clear that the models underlying the conventional statistical methods that are routinely taught and used can lead to low power, inflated false positive rates and inaccurate confidence intervals. In this chapter, we summarize these issues and how they affect replication assessment. We conclude that instead of trying to replicate poorly characterized effects, our efforts would be better spent on developing and discussing more detailed models.

Suggested Citation

  • Wilcox, Rand R. & Rousselet, Guillaume A, 2024. "More Reasons Why Replication Is A Difficult Issue," OSF Preprints 9amhe, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:9amhe
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/9amhe
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/664e566f77ff4c0c51e0451f/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/9amhe?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Valentin Amrhein & David Trafimow & Sander Greenland, 2019. "Inferential Statistics as Descriptive Statistics: There Is No Replication Crisis if We Don’t Expect Replication," The American Statistician, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 73(S1), pages 262-270, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Patrick Vu, 2022. "Can the Replication Rate Tell Us About Publication Bias?," Papers 2206.15023, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2022.
    2. Wang, Feipeng & Wong, Wing-Keung & Wang, Zheng & Albasher, Gadah & Alsultan, Nouf & Fatemah, Ambreen, 2023. "Emerging pathways to sustainable economic development: An interdisciplinary exploration of resource efficiency, technological innovation, and ecosystem resilience in resource-rich regions," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PA).
    3. G. Christopher Crawford & Vitaliy Skorodziyevskiy & Casey J. Frid & Thomas E. Nelson & Zahra Booyavi & Diana M. Hechavarria & Xuanye Li & Paul D. Reynolds & Ehsan Teymourian, 2022. "Advancing Entrepreneurship Theory Through Replication: A Case Study on Contemporary Methodological Challenges, Future Best Practices, and an Entreaty for Communality," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 46(3), pages 779-799, May.
    4. Markku Maula & Wouter Stam, 2020. "Enhancing Rigor in Quantitative Entrepreneurship Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 44(6), pages 1059-1090, November.
    5. Beecham, Roger & Lovelace, Robin, 2022. "A framework for inserting visually-supported inferences into geographical analysis workflow: application to road safety research," OSF Preprints mfja8, Center for Open Science.
    6. Austin Chia & Margaret L. Kern, 2021. "Subjective Wellbeing and the Social Responsibilities of Business: an Exploratory Investigation of Australian Perspectives," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 16(5), pages 1881-1908, October.
    7. Krzysztof Jajuga & Józef Pociecha & Mirosław Szreder, 2024. "Statistical inference and statistical learning in economic research – selected challenges," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, issue 2, pages 138-154.
    8. David Trafimow, 2019. "A Frequentist Alternative to Significance Testing, p -Values, and Confidence Intervals," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-14, June.
    9. Leon C Reteig & Lionel A Newman & K Richard Ridderinkhof & Heleen A Slagter, 2022. "Effects of tDCS on the attentional blink revisited: A statistical evaluation of a replication attempt," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, January.
    10. Arjen Witteloostuijn, 2020. "New-day statistical thinking: A bold proposal for a radical change in practices," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 51(2), pages 274-278, March.
    11. Sander Greenland, 2023. "Divergence versus decision P‐values: A distinction worth making in theory and keeping in practice: Or, how divergence P‐values measure evidence even when decision P‐values do not," Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, Danish Society for Theoretical Statistics;Finnish Statistical Society;Norwegian Statistical Association;Swedish Statistical Association, vol. 50(1), pages 54-88, March.
    12. Elise S. W. Hung, 2020. "Psychological Risk Factors of Future Drug Offending among Young Offenders in Hong Kong - A Longitudinal Study," International Journal of Psychological Studies, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(4), pages 1-31, December.
    13. Bagilet, Vincent & Zabrocki-Hallak, Léo, 2022. "Why Some Acute Health Effects of Air Pollution Could Be Inflated," I4R Discussion Paper Series 11, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    14. Pablo Martínez-Camblor, 2022. "Learning the Treatment Impact on Time-to-Event Outcomes: The Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Simulated Cohort," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-12, September.
    15. Sadri, Arash, 2022. "The Ultimate Cause of the “Reproducibility Crisis”: Reductionist Statistics," MetaArXiv yxba5, Center for Open Science.
    16. Scoggins, Bermond & Robertson, Matthew P., 2023. "Measuring Transparency in the Social Sciences: Political Science and International Relations," I4R Discussion Paper Series 14, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    17. Keith R Lohse & Kristin L Sainani & J Andrew Taylor & Michael L Butson & Emma J Knight & Andrew J Vickers, 2020. "Systematic review of the use of “magnitude-based inference” in sports science and medicine," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-22, June.
    18. Vu, Patrick, 2022. "Can the Replication Rate Tell Us About Selective Publication?," I4R Discussion Paper Series 3, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    19. Lippmann, Quentin, 2021. "Are gender quotas on candidates bound to be ineffective?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 661-678.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:9amhe. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.