Comparing dream to reality: an assessment of adherence of the first generation of preregistered studies

Author:

Claesen Aline1ORCID,Gomes Sara1ORCID,Tuerlinckx Francis1ORCID,Vanpaemel Wolf1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, KU Leuven, Tiensestraat 102, Leuven 3000, Belgium

Abstract

Preregistration is a method to increase research transparency by documenting research decisions on a public, third-party repository prior to any influence by data. It is becoming increasingly popular in all subfields of psychology and beyond. Adherence to the preregistration plan may not always be feasible and even is not necessarily desirable, but without disclosure of deviations, readers who do not carefully consult the preregistration plan might get the incorrect impression that the study was exactly conducted and reported as planned. In this paper, we have investigated adherence and disclosure of deviations for all articles published with the Preregistered badge in Psychological Science between February 2015 and November 2017 and shared our findings with the corresponding authors for feedback. Two out of 27 preregistered studies contained no deviations from the preregistration plan. In one study, all deviations were disclosed. Nine studies disclosed none of the deviations. We mainly observed (un)disclosed deviations from the plan regarding the reported sample size, exclusion criteria and statistical analysis. This closer look at preregistrations of the first generation reveals possible hurdles for reporting preregistered studies and provides input for future reporting guidelines. We discuss the results and possible explanations, and provide recommendations for preregistered research.

Funder

KU Leuven

Publisher

The Royal Society

Subject

Multidisciplinary

Reference30 articles.

1. False-Positive Psychology

2. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

3. Degrees of Freedom in Planning, Running, Analyzing, and Reporting Psychological Studies: A Checklist to Avoid p-Hacking

4. Gelman A Loken E. 2013 The garden of forking paths: why multiple comparisons can be a problem even when there is no ‘fishing expedition’ or ‘p-hacking’ and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time. Dep Stat Columbia Univ [Internet]. See http://stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/forking.pdf.

5. The preregistration revolution

Cited by 33 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3