Back to Search Start Over

Response to Comment on 'Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science'

Authors :
Anderson, C.J.
Bahnik, S.
Barnett-Cowan, M.
Bosco, F.A.
Chandler, J.
Chartier, C.R.
Hasselman, F.
Hulst, M. van der
Neijenhuijs, K.I.
Voracek, M.
Zuni, K.
Anderson, C.J.
Bahnik, S.
Barnett-Cowan, M.
Bosco, F.A.
Chandler, J.
Chartier, C.R.
Hasselman, F.
Hulst, M. van der
Neijenhuijs, K.I.
Voracek, M.
Zuni, K.
Source :
Science; 0036-8075; 6277; vol. 351; 1037-c; ~Science~~~~~0036-8075~6277~351~~1037-c
Publication Year :
2016

Abstract

Contains fulltext : 157278.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)<br />Gilbert et al. conclude that evidence from the Open Science Collaboration’s Reproducibility Project: Psychology indicates high reproducibility, given the study methodology. Their very optimistic assessment is limited by statistical misconceptions and by causal inferences from selectively interpreted, correlational data. Using the Reproducibility Project: Psychology data, both optimistic and pessimistic conclusions about reproducibility are possible, and neither are yet warranted.

Details

Database :
OAIster
Journal :
Science; 0036-8075; 6277; vol. 351; 1037-c; ~Science~~~~~0036-8075~6277~351~~1037-c
Publication Type :
Electronic Resource
Accession number :
edsoai.on1284056954
Document Type :
Electronic Resource