Mallory Kidwell on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”

Psychological Research Stories

I speak with Mallory Kidwell about the article “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science,” which was published in Science in the fall of 2015. The abstract for the article is provided below for your convenience. Mallory Kidwell works as a Project Coordinator for the Center for Open Science. To share comments or questions, please share them in the comment section below, or send me a message by going to methodologyforpsychology.org/contact. Thank you for listening.

Suggested Resources

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Abstract

“Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.”

The post Mallory Kidwell on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science” appeared first on The Methodology for Psychology Podcast - Social Psychology - Cognitive Psychology - Experimental Psychology - Psychology of Religion.