May 12, 2017 Is International ME/CFS and FM Awareness Day
International ME/CFS and FM Awareness Day is May 12th, 2017. Jody Smith shares some information about upcoming events and ways you can be heard ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Researchers overturn landmark study on the replicability of psychological science

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Sean, Mar 12, 2016.

  1. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,250
    Likes:
    17,960
    Just gets more and more confusing, doesn't it. o_O :rolleyes:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160303145733.htm

     
  2. Chrisb

    Chrisb Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,049
    Likes:
    5,347
    I am sure that any possible conflicts of interest will have been declared.
     
    Invisible Woman, Mary, Bob and 4 others like this.
  3. TiredSam

    TiredSam The wise nematode hibernates

    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes:
    21,530
    Germany
  4. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes:
    23,096
    The funny thing is that replicability doesn't even mean the results are true. It may just mean that the same biases leading to the false appearance of a result are present.

    I recall one study where a placebo was as good as asthma medication if one only looked at subjective measures. Only looking at objective measures revealed that the placebo actually made no difference. Studies of psychological interventions rarely look at objective measures. When they do, they may simply ignore inconvenient null results on objective measures (PACE being a good example)

    Yes, we cannot compare psychotherapy to placebo, but that is no excuse for not even trying to minimize bias, because there are other ways as well.

    It's a junk science factory.
     
  5. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards "Gibberish"

    Messages:
    5,219
    Likes:
    31,680
    I think these harvard boys and girls should be promoted to milk monitors and given a badge for doing what Sir likes. Of course the original paper was totally subjective and hyped - but that would make up for all the fiddled replications wouldn't it.
     
    Justin30, Invisible Woman and Sean like this.
  6. Gijs

    Gijs Senior Member

    Messages:
    640
    Likes:
    1,289
    Where is the psyche? In what place? Can someone show me on mri? The psyche does not exist objectively. Conclusion: psychological illnesses are nonsense. We are our brains.
     
  7. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Hibernating

    Messages:
    4,613
    Likes:
    12,428
    South Australia
    60%? Gee, I'm so impressed! Crisis over!
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2016
  8. *GG*

    *GG* Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,112
    Likes:
    4,694
    Concord, NH
    When we compared the replication rates of the endorsed and unendorsed protocols, we discovered that the endorsed protocols were nearly four times as likely to produce a successful replication (59.7%) as were the unendorsed protocols (15.4%).

    This strongly suggests that the infidelities did not just introduce random error but instead biased the replication studies toward failure. If OSC had limited their analyses to endorsed studies, they would have found that 59.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 47.5%, 70.9%] were replicated successfully.

    In fact, we estimate that if all the replication studies had been high enough in fidelity to earn the endorsement of the original authors, then the rate of successful replication would have been 58.6% (95% CI: 47.0%, 69.5%) when controlling for relevant covariates.

    Remarkably, the CIs of these estimates actually overlap the 65.5% replication rate that one would expect if every one of the original studies had reported a true effect.

    Although that seems rather unlikely, OSC’s data clearly provide no evidence for a “replication crisis” in psychological science.

    Breaking this up, to much freaking text in a large block!

    GG
     
  9. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,411
    Likes:
    34,772
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Yes. Also that a significant result can be significant bias. Significance is not truth.
     
    L'engle likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page