Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature

We have empirically assessed the distribution of published effect sizes and estimated power by analyzing 26,841 statistical records from 3,801 cognitive neuroscience and psychology papers published recently. The reported median effect size was D = 0.93 (interquartile range: 0.64-1.46) for nominally...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:

Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:	PLoS biology Ročník 15; číslo 3; s. e2000797
Hlavní autoři:	Szucs, Denes, Ioannidis, John P. A.
Médium:	Journal Article
Jazyk:	angličtina
Vydáno:	United States Public Library of Science 02.03.2017 Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Témata:	Abbreviations Bayesian analysis Biology and Life Sciences Carp Circularity Clinical trials Cognition Cognition & reasoning Cognitive ability Cognitive Neuroscience - statistics & numerical data Company structure Computer programs Correlation analysis Crises Data acquisition Data collection Data processing Decision analysis Degrees of freedom Drafting software Ecology Editing Empirical Research Error analysis Functional magnetic resonance imaging Funding Humans Hypotheses Impact factors Incentives Management Medical wastes Meta Nervous system Neuroimaging Neurosciences Null hypothesis Personality Philosophy Physical Sciences Physics Probability Psychiatry Psychology Psychology - statistics & numerical data Publications - statistics & numerical data Reliability analysis Replication Research and Analysis Methods Resonance Reviews Science Science publishing Social interactions Social Sciences Software Spatial distribution Statistical analysis Statistical significance Statistics Studies Surveys and Questionnaires Systems analysis
ISSN:	1545-7885, 1544-9173, 1545-7885
On-line přístup:	Získat plný text
Tagy:	Přidat tag Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!

Popis
Shrnutí:	We have empirically assessed the distribution of published effect sizes and estimated power by analyzing 26,841 statistical records from 3,801 cognitive neuroscience and psychology papers published recently. The reported median effect size was D = 0.93 (interquartile range: 0.64-1.46) for nominally statistically significant results and D = 0.24 (0.11-0.42) for nonsignificant results. Median power to detect small, medium, and large effects was 0.12, 0.44, and 0.73, reflecting no improvement through the past half-century. This is so because sample sizes have remained small. Assuming similar true effect sizes in both disciplines, power was lower in cognitive neuroscience than in psychology. Journal impact factors negatively correlated with power. Assuming a realistic range of prior probabilities for null hypotheses, false report probability is likely to exceed 50% for the whole literature. In light of our findings, the recently reported low replication success in psychology is realistic, and worse performance may be expected for cognitive neuroscience.
Bibliografie:	ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
ISSN:	1545-7885 1544-9173 1545-7885
DOI:	10.1371/journal.pbio.2000797