The Process of Replication Target Selection in Psychology: What to Consider?

Increased execution of replication studies contributes to the effort to restore credibility of empirical research. However, a second generation of problems arises: the number of potential replication targets is at a serious mismatch with available resources. Given limited resources, replication target selection should be well justified, systematic, and transparently communicated. At present the discussion on what to consider when selecting a replication target is limited to theoretical discussion, self-reported justifications, and a few formalized suggestions. In this Registered Report, we proposed a study involving the scientific community to create a list of considerations for consultation when selecting a replication target in psychology. We employed a modified Delphi approach. First, we constructed a preliminary list of considerations. Second, we surveyed psychologists who previously selected a replication target with regards to their considerations. Third, we incorporated the results into the preliminary list of considerations and sent the updated list to a group of individuals knowledgeable about concerns regarding replication target selection. Over the course of several rounds, we established consensus regarding what to consider when selecting a replication target

The process of replication target selection in psychology: what to consider?

Increased execution of replication studies contributes to the effort to restore credibility of empirical research. However, a second generation of problems arises: the number of potential replication targets is at a serious mismatch with available resources. Given limited resources, replication target selection should be well-justified, systematic and transparently communicated. At present the discussion on what to consider when selecting a replication target is limited to theoretical discussion, self-reported justifications and a few formalized suggestions. In this Registered Report, we proposed a study involving the scientific community to create a list of considerations for consultation when selecting a replication target in psychology. We employed a modified Delphi approach. First, we constructed a preliminary list of considerations. Second, we surveyed psychologists who previously selected a replication target with regards to their considerations. Third, we incorporated the results into the preliminary list of considerations and sent the updated list to a group of individuals knowledgeable about concerns regarding replication target selection. Over the course of several rounds, we established consensus regarding what to consider when selecting a replication target. The resulting checklist can be used for transparently communicating the rationale for selecting studies for replication

The Counterintuitive Interpretations Learned from Putatively Intuitive Simulations

Reasoning about sampling distributions is notably challenging for humans. It has been argued that the complexity involved in sampling processes can be facilitated by interactive computer simulations that allow learners to experiment with variables. In the current study, we compared the effects of learning sampling distributions through a simulation-based learning (SBL) versus direct instruction (DI) method. While both conditions resulted in similar improvement in rule learning and graph identification, neither condition improved more distant transfer of concepts. Furthermore, the simulation-based learning method resulted in unintuitive and surprising kinds of misconceptions about how sample size affects estimation of parameters while the direct instruction group used correct intuitive judgments more often. We argue that similar perceptual properties of different sampling processes in the SBL condition overrode learners’ intuitions and led them to make conceptual confusions that they would not typically make. We conclude that conceptually important differences should be grounded in easily interpretable and distinguishable perceptual representations in simulation-based learning methods. Keywords: education; statistics; learning with simulations; sampling distribution

Influences of Task Expectations and Failure Feedback on Learning from Subsequent Tasks

Previous research suggests that negative emotions invoked by failure feedback might lead people to tune out from the task, which is detrimental to their learning. However, failure feedback is pervasive in the real world and we need to identify ways we can learn from it optimally. In the current study, the participants’ (n = 218) task expectations were randomly set to be easy or hard. Then, the participants solved a novel type of equation problems that involved manipulation of researcher-invented symbols, followed by either success (“You solved the equations CORRECTLY!”) or failure feedback (“You solved the equations INCORRECTLY!”). Next, the participants were provided instruction about the rules of the equation tasks and solved posttest questions across two rounds. Across different learning outcomes, we identify the cases in which the influence of feedback is moderated by task difficulty expectations (on identical items), failure feedback results in similarly high performance with success feedback (on isomorphic items), and participants learn better when they receive failure than success feedback (at a new independent task). We conclude that the tune-out reactions to failure during feedback might be diminished, and even be reversed, after feedback. Keywords: feedback; learning from failure; task difficulty expectations; learning from errors; failure feedbac

Learning from Failure with Self vs Task Focused Feedback

Decades of feedback research have suggested that feedback is more effective in correcting errors than confirming the right responses. A study conducted by Eskreis-Winkler and Fishbach (2019) challenged this notion by showing that people learn less from feedback that indicates their answer is incorrect (failure feedback) than feedback that indicates their answer is correct (success feedback) even after incentivizing learning, manipulating response correctness, and controlling for background knowledge and mental inferences required for learning across conditions. Across two randomized experiments, we extended this work to investigate whether changing the focus of feedback from the self (“You answered this question correct/incorrect!”) to the task (“The answer was correct/incorrect!”) would reduce the difference between success and failure feedback. We replicated the previous study’s main finding that people learn less from failure feedback than success feedback. However, the focus of feedback message (task vs self) did not have the hypothesized effect. We suggest future research further investigate the impact of feedback focus using in-person experimental settings with more powerful designs and we recommend a set of motivational factors to investigate to determine how learning from failure feedback can be optimized. Keywords: learning; education; feedback; motivation; ego threat; replicatio

Can Direct-Acting Antiviral Treatment Change the Immunologic Risk Profile in Patients Infected with Hepatitis C Virus Who Are on the Cadaveric Waiting List?

Background. In patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, the activation of theimmune system by the virus or viral proteins leads to the production of numerous autoantibodiesand clinical manifestations. The objectives of this study were to investigate therelationship between HCV and anti-HLA antibodies, as well as the effect of viremia on theantibody response and of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) on anti-HLA antibodypersistence in patients on the waiting list for a cadaveric kidney transplant.Methods. A total of 395 patients from the cadaveric renal transplant waiting list wereincluded in the study. The patients were grouped according to the presence of HCVinfection, and patients with HCV positivity were further divided into a spontaneousclearance group and a persistent group. Anti-HLA antibodies were examined before andafter treatment of the patients in the persistent group. The One Lambda Luminexmethod (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, United States) was used to assessboth HLA class I and II alleles and the anti-HLA antibody profile.Results. Anti-HLA class I and II antibodies were detected in 48.2% and 55.1%,respectively, of the patients infected with HCV and in 21.8% and 20.4%, respectively, ofthe patients who were not infected. The level of anti-HLA A3, A11, B72, B52, Cw6, Cw16,DR3, and DQ4 antibodies was significantly higher in the patients infected with HCV.There was no statistically significant difference in class I and II antibody titrationbetween the HCV-infected spontaneous clearance group and the persistent group (classI mean fluorescence intensity [MFI] SD: 13,583 6224, 13,450 9540, P ¼ .808;Class II MFI SD: 13,000 8673, 8440 8302, P ¼ .317, respectively). There was nosignificant difference in the class I and class II anti-HLA antibody profile and titrationin the persistent group after treatment with DAAs (P > .05).Conclusions. The results of this study demonstrated that hepatitis C DAA treatment didnot change the anti-HLA antibody profile and titration

Infectious Complications of Induction Therapies in Kidney Transplantation.

Background: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) and BK virus (BKV) are post-transplant opportunistic viral infections that affect patientand graft survival. This study was designed to evaluate the risk of BKV nephropathy and CMV disease in kidneytransplant recipients who received induction therapy with ATG or basiliximab.Material/Methods: We retrospectively analyzed information on 257 adult patients who underwent kidney transplantation betweenJanuary 2007 and 2017. Patients were categorized into 3 groups according to the induction therapies. The primaryendpoint was the onset of CMV disease or biopsy-confirmed BKV nephropathy. The secondary endpointswere biopsy-proven rejection episodes, graft loss, loss to follow-up, and death.Results: We followed 257 patients for a median of 55.5 months. The incidence of CMV disease was significantly higherin the only ATG group compared to the group without induction treatment (p<0.001). There was no significantdifference in the incidence of BKV nephropathy among groups (p>0.05). The dosage of ATG (OR, 10.685; 95%CI, 1.343 5 to 85.009; P=0.025) was independent risk factor for death.Conclusions: This study demonstrated that a higher dosage of ATG in high-risk patients is associated with an increased riskof CMV disease and patient death, also, reducing the dosage may be a rational strategy for increasing graftand patient’s survival

The process of replication target selection in psychology: what to consider?

From The Royal Society via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2021-04-07, accepted 2023-01-13, collection 2023-02, pub-electronic 2023-02-01Peer reviewed: TrueArticle version: VoRPublication status: PublishedFunder: NWOIncreased execution of replication studies contributes to the effort to restore credibility of empirical research. However, a second generation of problems arises: the number of potential replication targets is at a serious mismatch with available resources. Given limited resources, replication target selection should be well-justified, systematic and transparently communicated. At present the discussion on what to consider when selecting a replication target is limited to theoretical discussion, self-reported justifications and a few formalized suggestions. In this Registered Report, we proposed a study involving the scientific community to create a list of considerations for consultation when selecting a replication target in psychology. We employed a modified Delphi approach. First, we constructed a preliminary list of considerations. Second, we surveyed psychologists who previously selected a replication target with regards to their considerations. Third, we incorporated the results into the preliminary list of considerations and sent the updated list to a group of individuals knowledgeable about concerns regarding replication target selection. Over the course of several rounds, we established consensus regarding what to consider when selecting a replication target. The resulting checklist can be used for transparently communicating the rationale for selecting studies for replication

The process of replication target selection in psychology: what to consider?

From Europe PMC via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: epub 2023-02-01, ppub 2023-02-01Publication status: PublishedIncreased execution of replication studies contributes to the effort to restore credibility of empirical research. However, a second generation of problems arises: the number of potential replication targets is at a serious mismatch with available resources. Given limited resources, replication target selection should be well-justified, systematic and transparently communicated. At present the discussion on what to consider when selecting a replication target is limited to theoretical discussion, self-reported justifications and a few formalized suggestions. In this Registered Report, we proposed a study involving the scientific community to create a list of considerations for consultation when selecting a replication target in psychology. We employed a modified Delphi approach. First, we constructed a preliminary list of considerations. Second, we surveyed psychologists who previously selected a replication target with regards to their considerations. Third, we incorporated the results into the preliminary list of considerations and sent the updated list to a group of individuals knowledgeable about concerns regarding replication target selection. Over the course of several rounds, we established consensus regarding what to consider when selecting a replication target. The resulting checklist can be used for transparently communicating the rationale for selecting studies for replication