Improving the Replicability and Transparency of Clinical Science - SRP 2018 Symposium I

Abstract

Psychology and many other scientific disciplines have come under fire of late as a result of clear evidence that findings are far less replicable than has been presumed (e.g. Ioannidis, 2005) due to a multitude of factors including insufficient power and the potentially widespread use of questionable research practices (e.g., p-hacking; HARKing). To date, however, these issues have received less attention in clinical science (Tackett et al., 2017). In this set of talks, issues relevant to improving the replicability and transparency of clinical science are discussed including the statistical power found in clinical psychology, how pre-registration and data sharing might be handled, the need to improve training in quantitative aspects of clinical science, and how transparency in the peer review process might affect these desired (and undesired) outcomes. Given the importance but controversial nature of these issues and recommendations, only four talks will be given to insure adequate time for discussion among the panel and audience both after each talk and at the end of the symposium. Preprints available: Reardon, Smack, Herzhoff, & Tackett (2018, August 16): https://psyarxiv.com/4fybk/ Benning, Bachrach, Smith, Freeman, & Wright (2018, August 3): https://psyarxiv.com/an8h3/ King, Pullmann, Lyon, Dorsey, & Lewis (2018, August 14): https://psyarxiv.com/n2v68/ Lynam, Hyatt, Hopwood, Wright, & Miller (2018, August 30): https://osf.io/v5dxf/

Ähnliche Arbeiten