中国临床心理学杂志

可重复性:心理学研究不可忽视的实践

作者：聂丹丹¹ 王浩² 3 罗蓉¹

单位：1. 江西师范大学心理学院江西省心理与认知科学重点实验室南昌 330022
2. 杭州师范大学心理科学研究院杭州 311121
3. 浙江省认知障碍评估技术研究重点实验室杭州 311121

分类号：R395.1

出版年,卷(期):页码：2016,24(4):618-622

摘要：

实验和统计方法使漫谈的心理学思想成为心理学科，建立了严谨的学科体系，促进了心理学的科学化。但是，越来越多的证据表明心理学研究在重复性验证上是脆弱的。究其原因：统计显著性检验的不确定性；样本和统计效力问题；统计方法和模型的误用；灵活的实验设计和选择性报告，均对可重复的研究造成了负面影响。作为科学界的自我审视和回应：选取大样本；增加科学研究的透明度；报告效果量和置信区间；结合其他可选的统计方法；接受富有影响的组织机构的倡议和建立可重复性的规范。科学是一个在探索未知中逐步减少不确定性的过程，可重复性作为科学本质之一和重要特征，这方面的实践将促进心理学科的自我修补和客观化，规范化，科学化进程。

A fundamental goal of statistics is to ensure the reproducibility of scientific findings and the reproducibility of statistical findings has become a concern for the psychologist.Experimental and statistical methods transformed the psychological thoughts to psychological sciences.However,the reproducibility in science is a familiar issue,not only within the scientific community,but with the general public as well.There are some key reasons for which statistical findings cannot be replicated,including statistical significance test does not tell us what we want to know;power and sampling issues;misapplication of statistical tests;flexible study designs and selective reporting.As self-examine and responds of the scientific community,to select large sample size;aspire to greater transparency;report effect sizes and confidence intervals;use a Bayesian statistical framework,meta-analysis,permutation test;establish reproducibility as a standard.The process of science is to explore the unknown and gradually reducing uncertainties.Reproducibility is a defining feature of science,but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown,this practice will contribute to the self-repairing,objectification,standardization,and scientization of psychological sciences.

基金项目：

江西省教育科学规划课题（项目编号：11YB149）

作者简介：

参考文献：

1 Nosek BA, et al. SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS. Promoting an open research culture. Science, 2015, 348(6242):1422-1425
2 Maxwell SE, Lau MY, Howard GS. Is psychology suffering from a replication crisis? What does "failure to replicate" really mean? American Psychologist, 2015, 70(6):487-498
3 Poldrack RA, Poline JB. The publication and reproducibility challenges of shared data. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2015, 19(2):59-61
4 Fanelli D."Positive" results increase down the Hierarchy of the Sciences. PloS One, 2010, 5(4):e10068
5 Yong E. Replication studies:Bad copy. Nature, 2012, 485 (7398):298-300
6 Halsey LG, et al. The fickle P value generates irreproducible results. Nature Methods, 2015, 12(3):179-185
7 Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2005, 2(8):e124
8 Button KS, et al. Power failure:Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews:Neuroscience, 2013, 14(5):365-376
9 Nieuwenhuis S, Forstmann BU, Wagenmakers EJ. Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience:a problem of significance. Nature Neuroscience, 2011, 14(9):1105-1107
10 Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. False-positive psychology:undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 2011, 22(11):1359-1366
11 Yu F, Peng K, Zheng X. Big data and psychology in China. Chinese Science Bulletin(Chinese Version), 2015, 60(5-6):520-533
12 Miguel E, et al. Social science. Promoting transparency in social science research. Science, 2014, 343(6166):30-31
13 Wilkinson L. Statistical methods in psychology journals:Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 1999, 54(8):594-604
14 Fritz CO, Morris PE, Richler JJ. Effect size estimates:Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 2012, 141(1):2-18
15 Efron B. Mathematics. Bayes' theorem in the 21st century. Science, 2013, 340(6137):1177-1178
16 McNutt M. Reproducibility. Science, 2014, 343(6168):229-229
17 Collins FS, Tabak LA. Policy:NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature, 2014, 505(7485):612-613
18 Kahneman D. A New Etiquette for Replication. Social Psychology, 2014, 45(4):310-311
19 Kenett RS, Shmueli G. Clarifying the terminology that describes scientific reproducibility. Nature Methods, 2015, 12 (8):699-699
20 Schmidt S. Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 2009, 13(2):90-100
21 Hanson B, Sugden A, Alberts B. Making data maximally available. Science, 2011, 331(6018):649-649
22 McNutt M. Journals unite for reproducibility. Science, 2014, 346(6210):679-679
23 Pashler H, Wagenmakers EJ. Editors' Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science:A Crisis of Confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2012, 7(6):528-530
24 MacCoun R, Perlmutter S. Blind analysis:Hide results to seek the truth. Nature, 2015, 526(7572):187-189
25 Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Thompson WL. Null hypothesis testing:Problems, prevalence, and an alternative. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 2000. 912-923
26 Bakan D. The test of significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 1966, 66(6):423-437
27 Haller H, Krauss S. Misinterpretations of significance:A problem students share with their teachers. Methods of Psychological Research, 2002, 7(1):1-20
28 Hubbard R, Ryan PA. The Historical Growth of Statistical Significance Testing in Psychology-and Its Future Prospects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2000, 60 (5):661-681
29 Cohen J. The earth is round(P<0.05). American Psychologist, 1994, 49(12):997-1003
30 Nickerson RS. Null hypothesis significance testing:a review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods, 2000, 5(2):241-301
31 Gigerenzer G, Krauss S, Vitouch O. The null ritual:What you always wanted to know about null hypothesis testing but were afraid to ask. in Handbook on Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. 2004. Citeseer
32 Neyman J, Pearson ES. On the Problem of the Most Efficient Tests of Statistical Hypotheses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character, 1933, 231:289-337
33 Fisher RA, Statistical methods for research workers. 1925:Genesis Publishing Pvt Ltd
34 Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 2010, 466(7302):29-29
35 Arnett JJ. The neglected 95%:Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 2008, 63(7):602-614
36 Cumming G. Replication and p Intervals p Values Predict the Future Only Vaguely, but Confidence Intervals Do Much Better. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2008, 3(4):286-300
37 Rosnow RL, Rosenthal R. Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. American Psychologist, 1989, 44(10):1276-1284
38 Stodden V. Trust your science? Open your data and code. Amstat News, 2011, 409:21-22
39 Sullivan GM, Feinn R. Using Effect Size-or Why the P Value Is Not Enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 2012, 4(3):279-282
40 Puga JL, Krzywinski M, Altman N. Points of Significance:Bayes' theorem. Nature Methods, 2015, 12(4):277-278
41 Eddy SR. What is Bayesian statistics? Nature Biotechnology, 2004, 22(9):1177-1178
42 Stephens M, Balding DJ. Bayesian statistical methods for genetic association studies. Nature Reviews:Genetics, 2009, 10(10):681-690
43 Eklund A, Nichols T, Knutsson H. Can parametric statistical methods be trusted for fMRI based group studies? arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.01863, 2015
44 Thompson SG, Pocock SJ. Can meta-analyses be trusted? The Lancet, 1991, 338(8775):1127-1130
45 Westfall J, Judd CM, Kenny DA. Replicating studies in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2015, 10(3):390-399

服务与反馈：

【文章下载】【加入收藏】