Changing the logic of replication: A case from infant studies |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Psychology and Cognitive Sciences, University of Trento, Italy;2. Department of Computer Science, Brunel University London, United Kingdom;1. Department of Linguistics and Translation, International Laboratory for Brain, Music & Sound Research (BRAMS), University of Montreal, C. P. 6128, Succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec H3C 3J7, Canada;2. Department of Psychology, Huron University College at Western, London, Ontario, Canada;1. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA;2. University of Delaware, DE, USA;3. University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA;4. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA;5. George Washington University, Washington D.C., USA;6. Yale Child Study Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA;7. University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA;1. Psychology, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia;2. School of Medicine, University of Notre Dame, Fremantle, Australia;3. Women’s Health, Genetics and Mental Health Directorate, King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women, Subiaco, Australia;4. Faculty of Health and Medicine Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia;1. Psychology Program, School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore;2. Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore;3. Department of Psychology and Cognitive Science, University of Trento, Italy;1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA;2. UNICEF, New York City, NY, USA;3. Institute for Fiscal Studies, London, UK |
| |
| Abstract: | Among infant researchers there is growing concern regarding the widespread practice of undertaking studies that have small sample sizes and employ tests with low statistical power (to detect a wide range of possible effects). For many researchers, issues of confidence may be partially resolved by relying on replications. Here, we bring further evidence that the classical logic of confirmation, according to which the result of a replication study confirms the original finding when it reaches statistical significance, could be usefully abandoned. With real examples taken from the infant literature and Monte Carlo simulations, we show that a very wide range of possible replication results would in a formal statistical sense constitute confirmation as they can be explained simply due to sampling error. Thus, often no useful conclusion can be derived from a single or small number of replication studies. We suggest that, in order to accumulate and generate new knowledge, the dichotomous view of replication as confirmatory/disconfirmatory can be replaced by an approach that emphasizes the estimation of effect sizes via meta-analysis. Moreover, we discuss possible solutions for reducing problems affecting the validity of conclusions drawn from meta-analyses in infant research. |
| |
| Keywords: | Replication Meta-analysis Sampling error Prediction interval Infancy |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
