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

Obtaining insights from high-dimensional data: sparse principal covariates regression

Abstract Background Data analysis methods are usually subdivided in two distinct classes: There are methods for prediction and there are methods for exploration. In practice, however, there often is a need to learn from the data in both ways. For example, when predicting the antibody titers a few weeks after vaccination on the basis of genomewide mRNA transcription rates, also mechanistic insights about the effect of vaccinations on the immune system are sought. Principal covariates regression (PCovR) is a method that combines both purposes. Yet, it misses insightful representations of the data as these include all the variables. Results Here, we propose a sparse extension of principal covariates regression such that the resulting solutions are based on an automatically selected subset of the variables. Our method is shown to outperform competing methods like sparse principal components regression and sparse partial least squares in a simulation study. Furthermore good performance of the method is illustrated on publicly available data including antibody titers and genomewide transcription rates for subjects vaccinated against the flu: the selected genes by sparse PCovR are higly enriched for immune related terms and the method predicts the titers for an independent test sample well. In comparison, no significantly enriched terms were found for the genes selected by sparse partial least squares and out-of-sample prediction was worse. Conclusions Sparse principal covariates regression is a promising and competitive tool for obtaining insights from high-dimensional data. Availability The source code implementing our proposed method is available from GitHub, together with all scripts used to extract, pre-process, analyze, and post-process the data: https://github.com/katrijnvandeun/SPCovR

Effect sizes, power, and biases in intelligence research: A meta-meta-analysis

In this meta-study, we analyzed 2442 effect sizes from 131 meta-analyses in intelligence research, published from 1984 to 2014, to estimate the average effect size, median power, and evidence for bias. We found that the average effect size in intelligence research was a Pearson’s correlation of 0.26, and the median sample size was 60. Furthermore, across primary studies, we found a median power of 11.9% to detect a small effect, 54.5% to detect a medium effect, and 93.9% to detect a large effect. We documented differences in average effect size and median estimated power between different types of intelligence studies (correlational studies, studies of group differences, experiments, toxicology, and behavior genetics). On average, across all meta-analyses (but not in every meta-analysis), we found evidence for small-study effects, potentially indicating publication bias and overestimated effects. We found no differences in small-study effects between different study types. We also found no convincing evidence for the decline effect, US effect, or citation bias across meta-analyses. We concluded that intelligence research does show signs of low power and publication bias, but that these problems seem less severe than in many other scientific fields