Research Repository

Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

Aarts, AA and Anderson, JE and Anderson, CJ and Attridge, PR and Attwood, A and Axt, J and Babel, M and Bahník, Š and Baranski, E and Barnett-Cowan, M and Bartmess, E and Beer, J and Bell, R and Bentley, H and Beyan, L and Binion, G and Borsboom, D and Bosch, A and Bosco, FA and Bowman, SD and Brandt, MJ and Braswell, E and Brohmer, H and Brown, BT and Brown, K and Brüning, J and Calhoun-Sauls, A and Callahan, SP and Chagnon, E and Chandler, J and Chartier, CR and Cheung, F and Christopherson, CD and Cillessen, L and Clay, R and Cleary, H and Cloud, MD and Conn, M and Cohoon, J and Columbus, S and Cordes, A and Costantini, G and Alvarez, LDC and Cremata, E and Crusius, J and DeCoster, J and DeGaetano, MA and Penna, ND and Den Bezemer, B and Deserno, MK and Devitt, O and Dewitte, L and Dobolyi, DG and Dodson, GT and Donnellan, MB and Donohue, R and Dore, RA and Dorrough, A and Dreber, A and Dugas, M and Dunn, EW and Easey, K and Eboigbe, S and Eggleston, C and Embley, J and Epskamp, S and Errington, TM and Estel, V and Farach, FJ and Feather, J and Fedor, A and Fernández-Castilla, B and Fiedler, S and Field, JG and Fitneva, SA and Flagan, T and Forest, AL and Forsell, E and Foster, JD and Frank, MC and Frazier, RS and Fuchs, H and Gable, P and Galak, J and Galliani, EM and Gampa, A and Garcia, S and Gazarian, D and Gilbert, E and Giner-Sorolla, R and Glöckner, A and Goellner, L and Goh, JX and Goldberg, R and Goodbourn, PT and Gordon-McKeon, S and Gorges, B and Gorges, J and Goss, J and Graham, J (2015) 'Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.' Science, 349 (6251). ISSN 0036-8075

Full text not available from this repository.

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.

Item Type: Article
Subjects: B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
Q Science > Q Science (General)
Divisions: Faculty of Science and Health > Psychology, Department of
Depositing User: Jim Jamieson
Date Deposited: 15 Nov 2016 11:55
Last Modified: 24 Apr 2019 10:17
URI: http://repository.essex.ac.uk/id/eprint/17970

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item