Selective hypothesis reporting inpsychology:Comparing preregistrations and corresponding publications

This study assesses the extent of selective hypothesis reporting in psychological research by comparing the hypotheses found in a set of 459 preregistrations to the hypotheses found in the corresponding papers. We found that more than half of the preregistered studies we assessed contain omitted hypotheses (N = 224; 52.2%) or added hypotheses (N = 227; 56.8%), and about one-fifth of studies contain changed hypotheses (N = 82; 19%). We found only a small number of studies with demoted hypotheses (N = 2; 1%) and no studies with promoted hypotheses. In all, 59% of studies include 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 found that added hypotheses and changed hypotheses were not more likely to be statistically significant than non-selectively reported hypotheses. For the other types of selective hypothesis reporting, no powerful test of the relationship with statistical significance could be carried out. Finally, we found that replication studies were less likely to include selectively reported hypotheses than original studies. Thus, selective hypothesis reporting is problematically common in psychological research and may partly be explained by the fact that authors do not specifically and clearly enough formulate hypotheses in preregistrations and papers. We urge researchers, reviewers, and editors to ensure that hypotheses outlined in preregistrations are clearly formulated and accurately presented in the corresponding papers

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.</p

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

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

The use of opioids at the end of life: the knowledge level of Dutch physicians as a potential barrier to effective pain management

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pain is still one of the most frequently occurring symptoms at the end of life, although it can be treated satisfactorily in most cases if the physician has adequate knowledge. In the Netherlands, almost 60% of the patients with non-acute illnesses die at home where end of life care is coordinated by the general practitioner (GP); about 30% die in hospitals (cared for by clinical specialists), and about 10% in nursing homes (cared for by elderly care physicians).</p> <p>The research question of this study is: what is the level of knowledge of Dutch physicians concerning pain management and the use of opioids at the end of life?</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A written questionnaire was sent to a random sample of physicians of specialties most often involved in end of life care in the Netherlands. The questionnaire was completed by 406 physicians, response rate 41%.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Almost all physicians were aware of the most basal knowledge about opioids, e.g. that it is important for treatment purposes to distinguish nociceptive from neuropathic pain (97%). Approximately half of the physicians (46%) did not know that decreased renal function raises plasma concentration of morphine(-metabolites) and 34% of the clinical specialists erroneously thought opioids are the favoured drug for palliative sedation.</p> <p>Although 91% knew that opioids titrated against pain do not shorten life, 10% sometimes or often gave higher dosages than needed with the explicit aim to hasten death. About half felt sometimes or often pressured by relatives to hasten death by increasing opioiddosage.</p> <p>The large majority (83%) of physicians was interested in additional education about subjects related to the end of life, the most popular subject was opioid rotation (46%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Although the basic knowledge of physicians was adequate, there seemed to be a lack of knowledge in several areas, which can be a barrier for good pain management at the end of life. From this study four areas emerge, in which it seems likely that an improvement can improve the quality of pain management at the end of life for many patients in the Netherlands: 1)palliative sedation; 2)expected effect of opioids on survival; and 3) opioid rotation.</p

Self-Esteem and Social Interactions in Daily Life: An Experience Sampling Study

Theory and empirical evidence suggest that self-esteem and the quality of social relationships are mutually related across long time spans, however, relatively less is known about this association in daily life. Experience sampling data of 232 Dutch Master’s students (Mage = 24.6, SDage = 2.7) was collected across 4 measurement waves including 14 days with 4 daily assessments in each wave. Dynamic Structural Equation Modeling was applied to study the within-day associations between morning/evening self-esteem and social interactions. First, we linked morning and evening self-esteem to the aggregated quality of social interactions during the day. Results showed that quality of social interactions during the day was associated with evening- but not morning self-esteem. Second, we linked anticipation of social interactions to morning and evening self-esteem. Positive anticipation of social interactions was positively associated with morning- but not evening self-esteem. Third, we investigated whether trait self-esteem moderated the within-day associations, but found no support for this hypothesis. Our results provide a better understanding of the daily short-term dynamics of self-esteem and social interactions in daily life – as they suggest that not only our actual social experiences, but also our anticipation of social interactions matter for daily self-esteem dynamics