Publication bias examined in meta-analyses from psychology and medicine: A meta-meta-analysis

<div><p>Publication bias is a substantial problem for the credibility of research in general and of meta-analyses in particular, as it yields overestimated effects and may suggest the existence of non-existing effects. Although there is consensus that publication bias exists, how strongly it affects different scientific literatures is currently less well-known. We examined evidence of publication bias in a large-scale data set of primary studies that were included in 83 meta-analyses published in Psychological Bulletin (representing meta-analyses from psychology) and 499 systematic reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR; representing meta-analyses from medicine). Publication bias was assessed on all homogeneous subsets (3.8% of all subsets of meta-analyses published in Psychological Bulletin) of primary studies included in meta-analyses, because publication bias methods do not have good statistical properties if the true effect size is heterogeneous. Publication bias tests did not reveal evidence for bias in the homogeneous subsets. Overestimation was minimal but statistically significant, providing evidence of publication bias that appeared to be similar in both fields. However, a Monte-Carlo simulation study revealed that the creation of homogeneous subsets resulted in challenging conditions for publication bias methods since the number of effect sizes in a subset was rather small (median number of effect sizes equaled 6). Our findings are in line with, in its most extreme case, publication bias ranging from no bias until only 5% statistically nonsignificant effect sizes being published. These and other findings, in combination with the small percentages of statistically significant primary effect sizes (28.9% and 18.9% for subsets published in Psychological Bulletin and CDSR), led to the conclusion that evidence for publication bias in the studied homogeneous subsets is weak, but suggestive of mild publication bias in both psychology and medicine.</p></div

Associations between lifestyle factors and multidimensional frailty:A cross-sectional study among community-dwelling older people

BACKGROUND: Multidimensional frailty, including physical, psychological, and social components, is associated to disability, lower quality of life, increased healthcare utilization, and mortality. In order to prevent or delay frailty, more knowledge of its determinants is necessary; one of these determinants is lifestyle. The aim of this study is to determine the association between lifestyle factors smoking, alcohol use, nutrition, physical activity, and multidimensional frailty. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in two samples comprising in total 45,336 Dutch community-dwelling individuals aged 65 years or older. These samples completed a questionnaire including questions about smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, sociodemographic factors (both samples), and nutrition (one sample). Multidimensional frailty was assessed with the Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI). RESULTS: Higher alcohol consumption, physical activity, healthy nutrition, and less smoking were associated with less total, physical, psychological and social frailty after controlling for effects of other lifestyle factors and sociodemographic characteristics of the participants (age, gender, marital status, education, income). Effects of physical activity on total and physical frailty were up to considerable, whereas the effects of other lifestyle factors on frailty were small. CONCLUSIONS: The four lifestyle factors were not only associated with physical frailty but also with psychological and social frailty. The different associations of frailty domains with lifestyle factors emphasize the importance of assessing frailty broadly and thus to pay attention to the multidimensional nature of this concept. The findings offer healthcare professionals starting points for interventions with the purpose to prevent or delay the onset of frailty, so community-dwelling older people have the possibility to aging in place accompanied by a good quality of life

Postprint "Who believes in the storybook image of the scientist?" accepted for publication in Accountability in Research

Do lay people and scientists themselves recognize that scientists are human and therefore prone to human fallibilities such as error, bias, and even dishonesty? In a series of three experimental studies and one correlational study (total N = 3,278) we found that the ‘storybook image of the scientist’ is pervasive: American lay people and scientists from over 60 countries attributed considerably more objectivity, rationality, open-mindedness, intelligence, integrity, and communality to scientists than other highly-educated people. Moreover, scientists perceived even larger differences than lay people did. Some groups of scientists also differentiated between different categories of scientists: established scientists attributed higher levels of the scientific traits to established scientists than to early-career scientists and PhD students, and higher levels to PhD students than to early-career scientists. Female scientists attributed considerably higher levels of the scientific traits to female scientists than to male scientists. A strong belief in the storybook image and the (human) tendency to attribute higher levels of desirable traits to people in one’s own group than to people in other groups may decrease scientists’ willingness to adopt recently proposed practices to reduce error, bias and dishonesty in science

The validity of the tool “statcheck” in discovering statistical reporting inconsistencies

The R package “statcheck” (Epskamp & Nuijten, 2016) is a tool to extract statistical results from articles and check whether the reported p-value matches the accompanying test statistic and degrees of freedom. A previous study showed high interrater reliabilities (between .76 and .89) between statcheck and manual coding of inconsistencies (.76 - .89; Nuijten, Hartgerink, Van Assen, Epskamp, & Wicherts, 2016). Here we present an additional, detailed study of the validity of statcheck. In Study 1, we calculated its sensitivity and specificity. We found that statcheck’s sensitivity (true positive rate) and specificity (true negative rate) were high: between 85.3% and 100%, and between 96.0% and 100%, respectively, depending on the assumptions and settings. The overall accuracy of statcheck ranged from 96.2% to 99.9%. In Study 2, we investigated statcheck’s ability to deal with statistical corrections for multiple testing or violations of assumptions in articles. We found that the prevalence of corrections for multiple testing or violations of assumptions in psychology was higher than we initially estimated in Nuijten et al. (2016). Although we found numerous reporting inconsistencies in results corrected for violations of the sphericity assumption, we demonstrate that inconsistencies associated with statistical corrections are not what is causing the high estimates of the prevalence of statistical reporting inconsistencies in psychology

Group autonomy enhancing treatment versus cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders:A cluster‐randomized clinical trial

Background Although cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is effective in the treatment of anxiety disorders, few evidence-based alternatives exist. Autonomy enhancing treatment (AET) aims to decrease the vulnerability for anxiety disorders by targeting underlying autonomy deficits and may therefore have similar effects on anxiety as CBT, but yield broader effects. Methods A multicenter cluster-randomized clinical trial was conducted including 129 patients with DSM-5 anxiety disorders, on average 33.66 years of age (SD = 12.57), 91 (70.5%) female, and most (92.2%) born in the Netherlands. Participants were randomized over 15-week groupwise AET or groupwise CBT and completed questionnaires on anxiety, general psychopathology, depression, quality of life, autonomy-connectedness and self-esteem, pre-, mid-, and posttreatment, and after 3, 6, and 12 months (six measurements). Results Contrary to the hypotheses, effects on the broader outcome measures did not differ between AET and CBT (d = .16 or smaller at post-test). Anxiety reduction was similar across conditions (d = .059 at post-test) and neither therapy was superior on long term. Conclusion This was the first clinical randomized trial comparing AET to CBT. The added value of AET does not seem to lie in enhanced effectiveness on broader outcome measures or on long term compared to CBT. However, the study supports the effectiveness of AET and thereby contributes to extended treatment options for anxiety disorders. The study was preregistered at the Netherlands Clinical Trial Registry (https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6250

The dire disregard of measurement invariance testing in psychological science

In psychological science, self-report scales are widely used to compare means in targeted latent constructs across time points, groups, or experimental conditions. For these scale mean comparisons (SMC) to be meaningful and unbiased, the scales should be measurement invariant across the compared time points or (experimental) groups. Measurement invariance (MI) testing checks whether the latent constructs are measured equivalently across groups or time points. Since MI is essential for meaningful comparisons, we conducted a systematic review to check whether MI is taken seriously in psychological research. Specifically, we sampled 426 psychology articles with openly available data that involved a total of 918 SMCs to (1) investigate common practices in conducting and reporting of MI testing, (2) check whether reported MI test results can be reproduced, and (3) conduct MI tests for the SMCs that enabled sufficiently powerful MI testing with the shared data. Our results indicate that (1) 4% of the 918 scales underwent MI testing across groups or time and that these tests were generally poorly reported, (2) none of the reported MI tests could be successfully reproduced, and (3) of 161 newly performed MI tests, a mere 46 (29%) reached sufficient MI (scalar invariance), and MI often failed completely (89; 55%). Thus, MI tests were rarely done and poorly reported in psychological studies, and the frequent violations of MI indicate that reported group differences cannot be solely attributed to group differences in the latent constructs. We offer recommendations on reporting MI tests and improving computational reproducibility practices

Ensuring the quality and specificity of preregistrations

Researchers face many, often seemingly arbitrary, choices in formulating hypotheses, designing protocols, collecting data, analyzing data, and reporting results. Opportunistic use of “researcher degrees of freedom” aimed at obtaining statistical significance increases the likelihood of obtaining and publishing false-positive results and overestimated effect sizes. Preregistration is a mechanism for reducing such degrees of freedom by specifying designs and analysis plans before observing the research outcomes. The effectiveness of preregistration may depend, in part, on whether the process facilitates sufficiently specific articulation of such plans. In this preregistered study, we compared 2 formats of preregistration available on the OSF: Standard Pre-Data Collection Registration and Prereg Challenge Registration (now called “OSF Preregistration,” http://osf.io/prereg/). The Prereg Challenge format was a “structured” workflow with detailed instructions and an independent review to confirm completeness; the “Standard” format was “unstructured” with minimal direct guidance to give researchers flexibility for what to prespecify. Results of comparing random samples of 53 preregistrations from each format indicate that the “structured” format restricted the opportunistic use of researcher degrees of freedom better (Cliff’s Delta = 0.49) than the “unstructured” format, but neither eliminated all researcher degrees of freedom. We also observed very low concordance among coders about the number of hypotheses (14%), indicating that they are often not clearly stated. We conclude that effective preregistration is challenging, and registration formats that provide effective guidance may improve the quality of research

Selective Hypothesis Reporting in Psychology:Comparing Preregistrations and Corresponding Publications

In this study, we assessed the extent of selective hypothesis reporting in psychological research by comparing the hypotheses found in a set of 459 preregistrations with the hypotheses found in the corresponding articles. We found that more than half of the preregistered studies we assessed contained omitted hypotheses (N = 224; 52%) or added hypotheses (N = 227; 57%), and about one-fifth of studies contained hypotheses with a direction change (N = 79; 18%). We found only a small number of studies with hypotheses that were demoted from primary to secondary importance (N = 2; 1%) and no studies with hypotheses that were promoted from secondary to primary importance. In all, 60% of studies included at least one hypothesis in one or more of these categories, indicating a substantial bias in presenting and selecting hypotheses by researchers and/or reviewers/editors. Contrary to our expectations, we did not find sufficient evidence that added hypotheses and changed hypotheses were more likely to be statistically significant than nonselectively reported hypotheses. For the other types of selective hypothesis reporting, we likely did not have sufficient statistical power to test for a relationship with statistical significance. Finally, we found that replication studies were less likely to include selectively reported hypotheses than original studies. In all, selective hypothesis reporting is problematically common in psychological research. We urge researchers, reviewers, and editors to ensure that hypotheses outlined in preregistrations are clearly formulated and accurately presented in the corresponding articles