25 research outputs found
The influence of journal submission guidelines on authors' reporting of statistics and use of open research practices.
From January 2014, Psychological Science introduced new submission guidelines that encouraged the use of effect sizes, estimation, and meta-analysis (the "new statistics"), required extra detail of methods, and offered badges for use of open science practices. We investigated the use of these practices in empirical articles published by Psychological Science and, for comparison, by the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, during the period of January 2013 to December 2015. The use of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) was extremely high at all times and in both journals. In Psychological Science, the use of confidence intervals increased markedly overall, from 28% of articles in 2013 to 70% in 2015, as did the availability of open data (3 to 39%) and open materials (7 to 31%). The other journal showed smaller or much smaller changes. Our findings suggest that journal-specific submission guidelines may encourage desirable changes in authors' practices
A many-analysts approach to the relation between religiosity and well-being
The relation between religiosity and well-being is one of the most researched topics in the psychology of religion, yet the directionality and robustness of the effect remains debated. Here, we adopted a many-analysts approach to assess the robustness of this relation based on a new cross-cultural dataset (N=10,535 participants from 24 countries). We recruited 120 analysis teams to investigate (1) whether religious people self-report higher well-being, and (2) whether the relation between religiosity and self-reported well-being depends on perceived cultural norms of religion (i.e., whether it is considered normal and desirable to be religious in a given country). In a two-stage procedure, the teams first created an analysis plan and then executed their planned analysis on the data. For the first research question, all but 3 teams reported positive effect sizes with credible/confidence intervals excluding zero (median reported ÎČ=0.120). For the second research question, this was the case for 65% of the teams (median reported ÎČ=0.039). While most teams applied (multilevel) linear regression models, there was considerable variability in the choice of items used to construct the independent variables, the dependent variable, and the included covariates
Effects of individual decision theory assumptions on predictions of cooperation in social dilemmas
Effects of individual decision theory assumptions on predictions of cooperation in social dilemmas
Effects of individual decision theory assumptions on predictions of cooperation in social dilemmas
Effects of individual decision theory assumptions on predictions of cooperation in social dilemmas
Raub and Snijders (1997) show that, under the assumption of S-shaped utility, conditions for cooperation in social dilemmas are more restrictive if outcomes represent losses than if outcomes represent gains. They neglected two interesting issues in their paper: conditions for cooperation in social dilemmas with both losses and gains as outcomes, and the effect of probability weighing on these conditions. In this paper it is shown that, under assumptions of Prospect Theory, conditions for cooperation are best if dilemmas include both positive and negative outcomes, and that these conditions improve with increasing loss aversion. Furthermore, it is shown that probability weighing can effect conditions to cooperate as well
Exploring the efficiency of the Tilburg Frailty Indicator: a review
Robbert JJ Gobbens,1–3 Jos MGA Schols,4 Marcel ALM van Assen5,6 1Faculty of Health, Sports and Social Work, Inholland University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; 2Zonnehuisgroep Amstelland, Amstelveen, the Netherlands; 3Department of General Practice, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium; 4Department of Health Services Research and Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI-Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; 5Department of Methodology and Statistics, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands; 6Department of Sociology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands Abstract: Due to rapidly aging human populations, frailty has become an essential concept, as it identifies older people who have higher risk of adverse outcomes, such as disability, institutionalization, lower quality of life, and premature death. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator (TFI) is a user-friendly questionnaire based on a multidimensional approach to frailty, assessing physical, psychologic, and social aspects of human functioning. This review aims to explore the efficiency of the TFI in assessing frailty as a means to carry out research into the antecedents and consequences of frailty, and its use both in daily practice and for future intervention studies. Using a multidimensional approach to frailty, in contexts where health care professionals or researchers may have no time to interview or examine the client, we recommend employing the TFI because there is robust evidence of its reliability and validity and it is easy and quick to administer. More studies are needed to establish whether the TFI is suitable for intervention studies not only in the community, but also for specific groups such as patients in the hospital or admitted to an emergency department. We conclude that it is important to not only determine the deficits that frail older people may have, but also to assess their balancing strengths and resources. In order to be able to meet the individual needs of frail older persons, traditional and often fragmented elderly care should be developed toward a more proactive elderly care, in which frail older persons and their informal network are in charge. Keywords: frailty, Tilburg Frailty Indicator, measurement instruments, psychometric properties, elderly car