Abstract:In 2015, the Open Science Collaboration repeated a series of 100 psychological experiments. Since a considerable part of these replications could not confirm the original effects and some of them pointed in the opposite direction, psychological research is said to lack reproducibility. Several general criticisms can explain this finding, such as the standardized use of undirected nil-null hypothesis tests, samples being too small and selective, lack of corrections for multiple testing, but also some widespread questionable research practices and incentives to publish positive results only. A selection of 57,909 articles from 12 renowned journals is processed with the JATSdecoder software to analyze the extent to which several empirical research practices in psychology have changed over the past 12 years. To identify journal- and time-specific changes, the relative use of statistics based on p-values, the number of reported p-values per paper, the relative use of confidence intervals, directed tests, power analysis, Bayesian procedures, non-standard α levels, correction procedures for multiple testing, and median sample sizes are analyzed for articles published between 2010 and 2015 and after 2015, and in more detail for every included journal and year of publication. In addition, the origin of authorships is analyzed over time. Compared to articles that were published in and before 2015, the median number of reported p-values per article has decreased from 14 to 12, whereas the median proportion of significant p-values per article remained constant at 69%. While reports of effect sizes and confidence intervals have increased, the α level is usually set to the default value of .05. The use of corrections for multiple testing has decreased. Although uncommon in each case (4% in total), directed testing is used less frequently, while Bayesian inference has become more common after 2015. The overall median estimated sample size has increased from 105 to 190.

P-value, Confidence Intervals and Statistical Inference: A New Dataset of Misinterpretation

Semantic and Cognitive Tools to Aid Statistical Science: Replace Confidence and Significance by Compatibility and Surprise

Addressing Common Misuses and Pitfalls of P values in Biomedical Research

Understanding p-values and significance

Why There Are So Many Contradicted or Exaggerated Findings in Highly-Cited Clinical Research?

The Search for Significance: A Few Peculiarities in the Distribution of P Values in Experimental Psychology Literature

Thou Shalt Not Reject the P-value

P-value, compatibility, and S-value

Are ChatGPT and Copilot Reliable for Health Education on Statistical Testing?

Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”

The reproducibility of statistical results in psychological research: An investigation using unpublished raw data.

Replication: Revisiting Tversky and Shafir’s (1992) Disjunction Effect with an extension comparing between and within subject designs

Replication and p Intervals: p Values Predict the Future Only Vaguely, but Confidence Intervals Do Much Better

P value functions: An underused method to present research results and to promote quantitative reasoning

The state of play of reproducibility in Statistics: an empirical analysis

Recent reproducibility estimates indicate that negative evidence is observed over 30 times before publication

A discipline-wide investigation of the replicability of Psychology papers over the past two decades

Changes in methodological study characteristics in psychology between 2010-2021

Statistical Methods for Replicability Assessment

The basic statistical concepts and their interrelationships in diagnostic research

Reporting and interpreting non-significant results in animal cognition research