Cognitieve gedragspsychologen mogen nog zoveel beweren dat ze een harde natuurwetenschap bedrijven (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-IPwpon8j8WcTVMVlhaak9BMzg/view?usp=drivesdk) ipv een zachte sociale wetenschap, wanneer je hun wetenschappelijke artikels dan weegt met een methode uit de harde wetenschappen, dan komen ze er maar belabberd uit.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/08/25/071530
Verhelderend eigenlijk:
We have empirically assessed the distribution of published effect sizes and estimated power by extracting more than 100,000 statistical records from about 10,000 cognitive neuroscience and psychology papers published during the past 5 years. The reported median effect size was d=0.93 (inter-quartile range: 0.64-1.46) for nominally statistically significant results and d=0.24 (0.11-0.42) for non-significant 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. Power was lowest for cognitive neuroscience journals. 14% of papers reported some statistically significant results, although the respective F statistic and degrees of freedom proved that these were non-significant; p value errors positively correlated with journal impact factors. 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.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten