A Bayesian Perspective on the Reproducibility Project: Psychology¶
Etz, A., & Vandekerckhove, J. (2016). A Bayesian Perspective on the Reproducibility Project: Psychology: Psychology. PLOS ONE.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Jeffreys-Lindley Paradox
- … replication crisis** — a Bayes-factor reanalysis of the Reproducibility Project found that many originals significant at p < .05 carried only weak evidence, the paradox's gap between significance and evidential weight, though there it came from small samples and publication bias rather than from the paradox's large n
This sourceBayes factors for 72 original studies and their replications: 92% of the originals reached p < .05 but only 43% gave strong evidence, the weakness traced to small, underpowered samples and publication bias.
- … replication crisis** — a Bayes-factor reanalysis of the Reproducibility Project found that many originals significant at p < .05 carried only weak evidence, the paradox's gap between significance and evidential weight, though there it came from small samples and publication bias rather than from the paradox's large n
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This work's DOI is recorded above but has not been resolved against an external catalogue, so nothing here confirms the work exists.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. The single citation of this work carries no recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:49bd168f4445 · see in the full table