Small Sample Size Solutions Chapter

Supplementary Material to "Testing Replication with Small Samples: Applications to ANOVA"

Testing replication with small samples: Applications to ANOVA

Findings based on small samples can offer important insights, but original small sample findings should be replicated before strong conclusions can be drawn. In this chapter, we present four common replication research questions: (1) whether the new effect size is similar to the original effect size, (2) whether the new effect size differs from the original effect size, (3) whether the conclusions based on new results differ from the original conclusions, and (4) what the effect size is in the population. For each of these research questions, we discuss appropriate evaluation methods: replication Bayes factors, confidence intervals, prediction intervals, the prior predictive p-value, and bias-corrected meta-analysis methods. Each method is illustrated for the replication of an ANOVA and associated post hoc t-test. Annotated R-code for all analyses is provided with the chapter

UU Open Science Questionnaire 2022

The UU Open Science Questionnaire 2022 is the follow-up of the UU Open Science Questionnaire 2020, which can be found here: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5727058. The open science monitor was an initiative by the Open Science Platform of Utrecht University. The questionnaire was sent to research staff at Utrecht University and University Medical Center Utrecht, with the aim to monitor their knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours towards Open Science practices. The report based on the questionnaire data can be found here: doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8375726

UU Open Science Monitor 2020

YODA storage “research-osonderzoek” February 7, 2022 – Dominique Rijshouwer ([email protected]; [email protected]) About the project: This data package contains all information relevant to the Project "UU Open Science Monitor 2020". Authors (alphabetical order): Loek Brinkman Judith de Haan Daniël van Hemert Joost de Laat Dominique Rijshouwer Sander Thomaes Ruth van Veelen Start date project: March 23, 2020 Publication date package: February 7, 2022 This project was started by the Open Science Programme of Utrecht University. With this project the university aims to gain insight into what can be done to facilitate and support Open Science among academics at Utrecht University and University Medical Center Utrecht. The survey that was constructed to inform the programme contained questions about awareness, attitudes and behaviors regarding several Open Science practices, as well as questions about the opportunities and barriers in carrying out those practices. The survey also contained questions about the MERIT model of the recognition and rewards track, behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic, and questions about department culture and professional identity but these last four themes are not part of the Open Science Monitor 2020 report. In October 2021 the Open Science Monitor 2020 report (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5725178), based on the OS Monitor 2020 questionnaire, was published. It can be found on the Zenodo community of the Open Science Programme, together with the pre-registration of the project (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5727107) and the questionnaire itself (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5727058). The data in this data package are not made publicly available due to privacy restrictions. The data in this package cannot be published openly, as it is privacy sensitive. We are working on a solution to give the public access to the data without having access to the sensitive information within the data. For now, anyone who is interested in a certain research question or analysis, can simply email their code (preferably SPSS syntax or R code) to the Open Science programme ([email protected]), and they will get back to you as soon as possible. If there are any other questions or suggestions related to this package or project, feel free to contact them for that as well. This project will be part of a larger long-term project with biennial Open Science Monitors. The Open Science Monitor 2022 Questionnaire is scheduled to go out in the spring of 2022. For more information about Open Science at Utrecht University, visit: www.uu.nl/en/research/open-scienc

Open Science Monitor 2020 Utrecht University: Commissioned by the Utrecht University Open Science Programme

This is the first version of the Open Science monitor on awareness, attitudes and behaviours in relation to 10 open science practices. The monitor was conducted among academics at Utrecht University and UMC Utrecht (the Netherlands) in the summer of 2020 with the aim to gain insight in academics’ attitude and behaviours towards various open science practices, the opportunities these practices may provide for the scientific community and the barriers in implementing open science practices the researchers may experience. With this monitor the university hopes to gain insight into what can be done to facilitate and support open science among academics at Utrecht University

Open Science Monitor 2020 Utrecht University: Commissioned by the Utrecht University Open Science Programme

This is the first version of the Open Science monitor on awareness, attitudes and behaviours in relation to 10 open science practices. The monitor was conducted among academics at Utrecht University and UMC Utrecht (the Netherlands) in the summer of 2020 with the aim to gain insight in academics’ attitude and behaviours towards various open science practices, the opportunities these practices may provide for the scientific community and the barriers in implementing open science practices the researchers may experience. With this monitor the university hopes to gain insight into what can be done to facilitate and support open science among academics at Utrecht University

Testing replication with small samples: Applications to ANOVA

Findings based on small samples can offer important insights, but original small sample findings should be replicated before strong conclusions can be drawn. In this chapter, we present four common replication research questions: (1) whether the new effect size is similar to the original effect size, (2) whether the new effect size differs from the original effect size, (3) whether the conclusions based on new results differ from the original conclusions, and (4) what the effect size is in the population. For each of these research questions, we discuss appropriate evaluation methods: replication Bayes factors, confidence intervals, prediction intervals, the prior predictive p-value, and bias-corrected meta-analysis methods. Each method is illustrated for the replication of an ANOVA and associated post hoc t-test. Annotated R-code for all analyses is provided with the chapter

Will Work-Family Guilt Experiences during the COVID-19 Pandemic Straitjacket Women into Prioritizing their Family?

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic drastically changed the circumstances for parents to combine work and care. We examined work-family guilt among working parents in the Netherlands during the first year of the COVID-19-pandemic (2020). In a cross-sectional survey study with two time points (March and December 2020) in a sample of working parents (N = 574) in the Netherlands, we revealed three key findings. (1) On average, mothers experienced more guilt towards their family for time and energy invested in work instead of family (work-family guilt) than fathers. (2) Parents with essential occupations (regardless of gender) reported significantly stronger experiences of work-family guilt during the first year of the pandemic compared to parents with non-essential occupations. (3) Parents who experienced stronger work-family guilt were more likely to compensate for their guilt by prioritizing family over work and self (by foregoing their leisure time or intending to reduce workhours in order to be with their family). Together these findings show that in terms of combining work and family, the situation is clearly harder on some more than others, namely mothers and essential workers. These findings demonstrate the gendered experience of work-family guilt and the asymmetrical impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work-family experiences of parents

Will Work-Family Guilt Experiences during the COVID-19 Pandemic Straitjacket Women into Prioritizing their Family?

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic drastically changed the circumstances for parents to combine work and care. We examined work-family guilt among working parents in the Netherlands during the first year of the COVID-19-pandemic (2020). In a cross-sectional survey study with two time points (March and December 2020) in a sample of working parents (N = 574) in the Netherlands, we revealed three key findings. (1) On average, mothers experienced more guilt towards their family for time and energy invested in work instead of family (work-family guilt) than fathers. (2) Parents with essential occupations (regardless of gender) reported significantly stronger experiences of work-family guilt during the first year of the pandemic compared to parents with non-essential occupations. (3) Parents who experienced stronger work-family guilt were more likely to compensate for their guilt by prioritizing family over work and self (by foregoing their leisure time or intending to reduce workhours in order to be with their family). Together these findings show that in terms of combining work and family, the situation is clearly harder on some more than others, namely mothers and essential workers. These findings demonstrate the gendered experience of work-family guilt and the asymmetrical impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work-family experiences of parents

Will Work-Family Guilt Experiences during the COVID-19 Pandemic Straitjacket Women into Prioritizing their Family?

The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic drastically changed the circumstances for parents to combine work and care. We examined work-family guilt among working parents in the Netherlands during the first year of the COVID-19-pandemic (2020). In a cross-sectional survey study with two time points (March and December 2020) in a sample of working parents (N = 574) in the Netherlands, we revealed three key findings. (1) On average, mothers experienced more guilt towards their family for time and energy invested in work instead of family (work-family guilt) than fathers. (2) Parents with essential occupations (regardless of gender) reported significantly stronger experiences of work-family guilt during the first year of the pandemic compared to parents with non-essential occupations. (3) Parents who experienced stronger work-family guilt were more likely to compensate for their guilt by prioritizing family over work and self (by foregoing their leisure time or intending to reduce workhours in order to be with their family). Together these findings show that in terms of combining work and family, the situation is clearly harder on some more than others, namely mothers and essential workers. These findings demonstrate the gendered experience of work-family guilt and the asymmetrical impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the work-family experiences of parents