13 research outputs found

    The Effect of Selective Public Research University Enrollment: Evidence from California

    No full text

    Contextual differences in the interpretation of thermal perception scales – the data base from a large-scale international questionnaire study

    No full text
    Within the IEA EBC Annex 69 on Strategy and Practice of Adaptive Thermal Comfort in Low Energy Buildings (http://annex69.org/), we are conducting an international questionnaire study related to thermal comfort scales. Our objective is the analysis of influences on the perception of thermal comfort scales. In particular, we are looking at the effect of the current thermal state, peoples climatic background, and level of adaptation on the relationship between thermal sensation, thermal comfort, and thermal acceptance

    Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability

    No full text
    Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δr = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19–.50)

    Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability

    No full text
    Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δr = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies (r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19–.50)

    Chapter 8 Precarious Transition and the Renewal of Religion at Harvard, 1941/1948–1959

    No full text

    Metadata record for: The Scales Project, a cross-national dataset on the interpretation of thermal perception scales

    No full text
    This dataset contains key characteristics about the data described in the Data Descriptor The Scales Project, a cross-national dataset on the interpretation of thermal perception scales. Contents: 1. human readable metadata summary table in CSV format 2. machine readable metadata file in JSON format Versioning Note:Version 2 was generated when the metadata format was updated from JSON to JSON-LD. This was an automatic process that changed only the format, not the contents, of the metadata

    Metadata record for: The Scales Project, a cross-national dataset on the interpretation of thermal perception scales

    No full text
    This dataset contains key characteristics about the data described in the Data Descriptor The Scales Project, a cross-national dataset on the interpretation of thermal perception scales. Contents: 1. human readable metadata summary table in CSV format 2. machine readable metadata file in JSON format Versioning Note:Version 2 was generated when the metadata format was updated from JSON to JSON-LD. This was an automatic process that changed only the format, not the contents, of the metadata
    corecore