Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Dolphin, Sep 10, 2014.
Free full text: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0105825
I've only read the abstract, and I love the conclusion! (Which is not really a surprise to us!)
Do I understand this right? In plain English, psychology studies with few participants report great effects, but the more participants there are, the smaller the effect. This suggests that many studies select participants in a biased manner, or that small studies are being done and redone until they show the desired outcome. The barely statistically significant findings also suggest that data is tortured until it confesses, or that studies are being done and redone until by sheer chance the desired result is obtained.
I haven't read the full paper but my interpretation is the same as your's.
(But I couldn't have summarised it so well.)
Oh wow, this is funny. Come on, I think you can close that last 10% gap. Then you no longer need to do research because you're always right anyways.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.