Catalogue Search | MBRL
Search Results Heading
Explore the vast range of titles available.
MBRLSearchResults
-
DisciplineDiscipline
-
Is Peer ReviewedIs Peer Reviewed
-
Series TitleSeries Title
-
Reading LevelReading Level
-
YearFrom:-To:
-
More FiltersMore FiltersContent TypeItem TypeIs Full-Text AvailableSubjectPublisherSourceDonorLanguagePlace of PublicationContributorsLocation
Done
Filters
Reset
52,273
result(s) for
"Psychology Standards."
Sort by:
Marginally Significant Effects as Evidence for Hypotheses: Changing Attitudes Over Four Decades
by
Horne, Zachary
,
Powell, Derek
,
Pritschet, Laura
in
Attitudes
,
Behavioral Research - standards
,
Cognitive psychology
2016
Some effects are statistically significant. Other effects do not reach the threshold of statistical significance and are sometimes described as \"marginally significant\" or as \"approaching significance.\" Although the concept of marginal significance is widely deployed in academic psychology, there has been very little systematic examination of psychologists' attitudes toward these effects. Here, we report an observational study in which we investigated psychologists' attitudes concerning marginal significance by examining their language in over 1,500 articles published in top-tier cognitive, developmental, and social psychology journals. We observed a large change over the course of four decades in psychologists' tendency to describe a p value as marginally significant, and overall rates of use appear to differ across subfields. We discuss possible explanations for these findings, as well as their implications for psychological research.
Journal Article
Evaluating clinicians' representations of schizoaffective disorder
by
Webb, Christopher A.
,
Keeley, Jared W.
in
Adult
,
Bipolar disorder
,
Bipolar Disorder - diagnosis
2017
Schizoaffective disorder (SAD) has routinely exhibited poor diagnostic accuracy and reliability. In addition to phenomenological problems with the definition of SAD, the way in which clinicians represent the symptoms of the disorder could contribute to its poor diagnostic outcomes.
The present study sought to examine clinicians' representations of SAD compared to schizophrenia (SCZ), bipolar disorder with psychotic features (BiPD-PSY), and major depressive disorder with psychotic features (MDD-PSY).
Participants (N=113) were clinicians recruited via email as part of a larger study. They were randomly assigned to either select symptoms from a predetermined criteria list or freely list features of the disorders based on their own mental representations.
Participants' conceptualizations of SAD were not entirely congruent with DSM-5 criteria; they conceptualized it as less psychotic than SCZ and less affective than the two mood disorder tasks. SAD was conceptualized as significantly more depressive than manic.
This study's findings support the notion that clinicians' conceptualizations of SAD are not entirely congruent with its DSM-5 criteria, which could contribute to diagnostic difficulties.
Journal Article
Verbal, Visual, and Intermediary Support for Child Witnesses with Autism During Investigative Interviews
2017
Three promising investigative interview interventions were assessed in 270 children (age 6–11 years): 71 with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and 199 who were typically developing (TD). Children received ‘Verbal Labels’, ‘Sketch Reinstatement of Context’ or ‘Registered Intermediary’ interviews designed to improve interview performance without decreasing accuracy. Children with ASD showed no increases in the number of correct details recalled for any of the three interview types (compared to a Best-Practice police interview), whereas TD children showed significant improvements in the Registered Intermediary and Verbal Labels interviews. Findings suggested that children with ASD can perform as well as TD children in certain types of investigative interviews, but some expected benefits (e.g., of Registered Intermediaries) were not apparent in this study.
Journal Article
The New Statistics: Why and How
by
Cumming, Geoff
in
Academic disciplines
,
Biological and medical sciences
,
Biomedical Research - standards
2014
We need to make substantial changes to how we conduct research. First, in response to heightened concern that our published research literature is incomplete and untrustworthy, we need new requirements to ensure research integrity. These include prespecification of studies whenever possible, avoidance of selection and other inappropriate dataanalytic practices, complete reporting, and encouragement of replication. Second, in response to renewed recognition of the severe flaws of null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST), we need to shift from reliance on NHST to estimation and other preferred techniques. The new statistics refers to recommended practices, including estimation based on effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. The techniques are not new, but adopting them widely would be new for many researchers, as well as highly beneficial. This article explains why the new statistics are important and offers guidance for their use. It describes an eight-step new-statistics strategy for research with integrity, which starts with formulation of research questions in estimation terms, has no place for NHST, and is aimed at building a cumulative quantitative discipline.
Journal Article
Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
by
Prelec, Drazen
,
Loewenstein, George
,
John, Leslie K.
in
Biological and medical sciences
,
Bleeding time
,
Correlations
2012
Cases of clear scientific misconduct have received significant media attention recently, but less flagrantly questionable research practices may be more prevalent and, ultimately, more damaging to the academic enterprise. Using an anonymous elicitation format supplemented by incentives for honest reporting, we surveyed over 2,000 psychologists about their involvement in questionable research practices. The impact of truth-telling incentives on self-admissions of questionable research practices was positive, and this impact was greater for practices that respondents judged to be less defensible. Combining three different estimation methods, we found that the percentage of respondents who have engaged in questionable practices was surprisingly high. This finding suggests that some questionable practices may constitute the prevailing research norm.
Journal Article