In episode 34 we covered a blog post that highlighted questionable analytical approaches in psychology. That post mentioned four studies that resulted from this approach, which a team of researchers took a closer look into. Dan and James discuss the statistical inconsistencies that the authors reported in a recent preprint.
Some of the topics covered:
Trump (of course)
A summary of the preprint
The GRIM test to detect inconsistencies
The researchers that accidently administered the equivalent of 300 cups of coffee to study participants
How do we prevent inconsistent reporting?
21 word solution for research transparency
Journals mandating statistical inconsistency checks, such as 'statcheck'
Links
The pre-print
https://peerj.com/preprints/2748/
'The grad student that didn't say no' blog post
http://www.brianwansink.com/phd-advice/the-grad-student-who-never-said-no
The caffeine study
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-tyne-38744307
Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group lab handbook (see page 6 for open science practices)
http://www.bris.ac.uk/media-library/sites/expsych/documents/targ/TARG%20Handbook%20161128.pdf
21 word solution
http://spsp.org/sites/default/files/dialogue_26(2).pdf
Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/everythinghertzpodcast/
Twitter account
https://www.twitter.com/hertzpodcast