In models we trust: preregistration, large samples, and replication may not suffice

Despite discussions about the replicability of findings in psychological research, two issues have been largely ignored: selection mechanisms and model assumptions. Both topics address the same fundamental question: Does the chosen statistical analysis tool adequately model the data generation proce...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Martin Spiess, Pascal Jordan
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-09-01
Series:Frontiers in Psychology
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1266447/full
_version_ 1797676848401874944
author Martin Spiess
Pascal Jordan
author_facet Martin Spiess
Pascal Jordan
author_sort Martin Spiess
collection DOAJ
description Despite discussions about the replicability of findings in psychological research, two issues have been largely ignored: selection mechanisms and model assumptions. Both topics address the same fundamental question: Does the chosen statistical analysis tool adequately model the data generation process? In this article, we address both issues and show, in a first step, that in the face of selective samples and contrary to common practice, the validity of inferences, even when based on experimental designs, can be claimed without further justification and adaptation of standard methods only in very specific situations. We then broaden our perspective to discuss consequences of violated assumptions in linear models in the context of psychological research in general and in generalized linear mixed models as used in item response theory. These types of misspecification are oftentimes ignored in the psychological research literature. It is emphasized that the above problems cannot be overcome by strategies such as preregistration, large samples, replications, or a ban on testing null hypotheses. To avoid biased conclusions, we briefly discuss tools such as model diagnostics, statistical methods to compensate for selectivity and semi- or non-parametric estimation. At a more fundamental level, however, a twofold strategy seems indispensable: (1) iterative, cumulative theory development based on statistical methods with theoretically justified assumptions, and (2) empirical research on variables that affect (self-) selection into the observed part of the sample and the use of this information to compensate for selectivity.
first_indexed 2024-03-11T22:35:17Z
format Article
id doaj.art-d77787fed5b94d7690b81687ac6af081
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1664-1078
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-11T22:35:17Z
publishDate 2023-09-01
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format Article
series Frontiers in Psychology
spelling doaj.art-d77787fed5b94d7690b81687ac6af0812023-09-22T15:32:53ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782023-09-011410.3389/fpsyg.2023.12664471266447In models we trust: preregistration, large samples, and replication may not sufficeMartin SpiessPascal JordanDespite discussions about the replicability of findings in psychological research, two issues have been largely ignored: selection mechanisms and model assumptions. Both topics address the same fundamental question: Does the chosen statistical analysis tool adequately model the data generation process? In this article, we address both issues and show, in a first step, that in the face of selective samples and contrary to common practice, the validity of inferences, even when based on experimental designs, can be claimed without further justification and adaptation of standard methods only in very specific situations. We then broaden our perspective to discuss consequences of violated assumptions in linear models in the context of psychological research in general and in generalized linear mixed models as used in item response theory. These types of misspecification are oftentimes ignored in the psychological research literature. It is emphasized that the above problems cannot be overcome by strategies such as preregistration, large samples, replications, or a ban on testing null hypotheses. To avoid biased conclusions, we briefly discuss tools such as model diagnostics, statistical methods to compensate for selectivity and semi- or non-parametric estimation. At a more fundamental level, however, a twofold strategy seems indispensable: (1) iterative, cumulative theory development based on statistical methods with theoretically justified assumptions, and (2) empirical research on variables that affect (self-) selection into the observed part of the sample and the use of this information to compensate for selectivity.https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1266447/fullpopulationsampling designnon-responseselectivitymisspecificationbiased inference
spellingShingle Martin Spiess
Pascal Jordan
In models we trust: preregistration, large samples, and replication may not suffice
Frontiers in Psychology
population
sampling design
non-response
selectivity
misspecification
biased inference
title In models we trust: preregistration, large samples, and replication may not suffice
title_full In models we trust: preregistration, large samples, and replication may not suffice
title_fullStr In models we trust: preregistration, large samples, and replication may not suffice
title_full_unstemmed In models we trust: preregistration, large samples, and replication may not suffice
title_short In models we trust: preregistration, large samples, and replication may not suffice
title_sort in models we trust preregistration large samples and replication may not suffice
topic population
sampling design
non-response
selectivity
misspecification
biased inference
url https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1266447/full
work_keys_str_mv AT martinspiess inmodelswetrustpreregistrationlargesamplesandreplicationmaynotsuffice
AT pascaljordan inmodelswetrustpreregistrationlargesamplesandreplicationmaynotsuffice