Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

Journal article published in 2015 by Anna E. van 't Veer, Robbie van Aert, Daan R. van Renswoude, M. Zuni, B. den Bezemer, Marcel van Assen, Riet van Bork, Mathijs van de Ven, Don van den Bergh, Marije van der Hulst, Roel van Dooren, Johnny van Doorn, Hedderik van Rijn, J. E. Anderson, C. J. Anderson and other authors.
This paper is available in a repository.
This paper is available in a repository.

Full text: Download

Question mark in circle
Preprint: policy unknown
Upload
Question mark in circle
Postprint: policy unknown
Upload
Question mark in circle
Published version: policy unknown
Upload

Abstract

Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams. ; link_to_subscribed_fulltext