Dr. Ulrich Schimmack's Blog about Replicability

For generalization, psychologists must finally rely, as has been done in all the older sciences, on replication” (Cohen, 1994).

DEFINITION OF REPLICABILITYIn empirical studies with sampling error, replicability refers to the probability of a study with a significant result to produce a significant result again in an exact replication study of the first study using the same sample size and significance criterion (Schimmack, 2017).

BLOGS BY YEAR:  20192018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014

Featured Blog of the Month (January, 2020): Z-Curve.2.0 (with R-package) 

 

TOP TEN BLOGS

RR.Logo

  1. 2018 Replicability Rankings of 117 Psychology Journals (2010-2018)

Rankings of 117 Psychology Journals according to the average replicability of a published significant result. Also includes detailed analysis of time trends in replicability from 2010 to 2018). 

Golden2.  Introduction to Z-Curve with R-Code

This post presented the first replicability ranking and explains the methodology that is used to estimate the typical power of a significant result published in a journal.  The post provides an explanation of the new method to estimate observed power based on the distribution of test statistics converted into absolute z-scores.  The method has been developed further to estimate power for a wider range of z-scores by developing a model that allows for heterogeneity in power across tests.  A description of the new method will be published when extensive simulation studies are completed.

Say-No-to-Doping-Test-Image

3. An Introduction to the R-Index

 

The R-Index can be used to predict whether a set of published results will replicate in a set of exact replication studies. It combines information about the observed power of the original studies with information about the amount of inflation in observed power due to publication bias (R-Index = Observed Median Power – Inflation). The R-Index has predicted the outcome of actual replication studies.

Featured Image -- 203

4.  The Test of Insufficient Variance (TIVA)

 

The Test of Insufficient Variance is the most powerful test of publication bias and/or dishonest reporting practices. It can be used even if only two independent statistical results are available, although power to detect bias increases with the number of studies. After converting test results into z-scores, z-scores are expected to have a variance of one.   Unless power is very high, some of these z-scores will not be statistically significant (z .05 two-tailed).  If these non-significant results are missing, the variance shrinks, and TIVA detects that the variance is insufficient.  The observed variance is compared against the expected variance of 1 with a left-tailed chi-square test. The usefulness of TIVA is illustrated with Bem’s (2011) “Feeling the Future” data.

train-wreck-15.  MOST VIEWED POST (with comment by Noble Laureate Daniel Kahneman)

Reconstruction of a Train Wreck: How Priming Research Went off the Rails

This blog post examines the replicability of priming studies cited in Daniel Kahneman’s popular book “Thinking fast and slow.”   The results suggest that many of the cited findings are difficult to replicate.

http://schoolsnapshots.org/blog/2014/09/30/math-prize-for-girls-at-m-i-t/6. How robust are Stereotype-Threat Effects on Women’s Math Performance?

Stereotype-threat has been used by social psychologists to explain gender differences in math performance. Accordingly, the stereotype that men are better at math than women is threatening to women and threat leads to lower performance.  This theory has produced a large number of studies, but a recent meta-analysis showed that the literature suffers from publication bias and dishonest reporting.  After correcting for these effects, the stereotype-threat effect was negligible.  This blog post shows a low R-Index for the first article that appeared to provide strong support for stereotype-threat.  These results show that the R-Index can warn readers and researchers that reported results are too good to be true.

GPower7.  An attempt at explaining null-hypothesis testing and statistical power with 1 figure and 1500 words.   Null-hypothesis significance testing is old, widely used, and confusing. Many false claims have been used to suggest that NHST is a flawed statistical method. Others argue that the method is fine, but often misunderstood. Here I try to explain NHST and why it is important to consider power (type-II errors) using a picture from the free software GPower.

snake-oil

8.  The Problem with Bayesian Null-Hypothesis Testing

 

Some Bayesian statisticians have proposed Bayes-Factors to provide evidence for a Null-Hypothesis (i.e., there is no effect).  They used Bem’s (2011) “Feeling the Future” data to argue that Bayes-Factors would have demonstrated that extra-sensory perception does not exist.  This blog post shows that Bayes-Factors depend on the specification of the alternative hypothesis and that support for the null-hypothesis is often obtained by choosing an unrealistic alternative hypothesis (e.g., there is a 25% probability that effect size is greater than one standard deviation, d > 1).  As a result, Bayes-Factors can favor the null-hypothesis when there is an effect, but the effect size is small (d = .2).  A Bayes-Factor in favor of the null is more appropriately interpreted as evidence that the alternative hypothesis needs to decrease the probabilities assigned to large effect sizes. The post also shows that Bayes-Factors based on a meta-analysis of Bem’s data provide misleading evidence that an effect is present because Bayesian statistics do not take publication bias and dishonest reporting practices into account.

hidden9. Hidden figures: Replication failures in the stereotype threat literature.  A widespread problem is that failed replication studies are often not published. This blog post shows that another problem is that failed replication studies are ignored even when they are published.  Selective publishing of confirmatory results undermines the credibility of science and claims about the importance of stereotype threat to explain gender differences in mathematics.

20170620_14554410. My journey towards estimation of replicability.  In this blog post I explain how I got interested in statistical power and replicability and how I developed statistical methods to reveal selection bias and to estimate replicability.

Robust Science with Low Replicability?

Stephan Lewandowsky and Klaus Oberauer (2020) published an article titled “Low replicability can support robust and efficient science.” A good example of low replicability is the cited finding that only 25% of results published in social psychology could be replicated (OSC, 2015). Thus, the title suggests that social psychology can be a robust science even if only one quarter of published findings are replicable. This seems to be a surprising conclusion that goes against initiatives to improve psychological science.

The authors note that low replication rates in social psychology have been used to call for more replication studies (Zwaan et al., 201z). The main point of the article is that this is not necessarily the best response to the replication crisis in social psychology.

“Highlighting the virtues of replications is, however, not particularly helpful without careful consideration of when, how, why, and by whom experiments should be replicated.”

Examining when replication studies are valuable or a waste of resources is an important and interesting question. However, this question is different from the replicability of the original studies that are being published in social psychology. That is, we can distinguish two questions: (a) how replicable should original studies be and (b) how many original studies should be replicated?

The first question about replicability is essentially a question about statistical power (Cohen, 1962; Brunner & Schimmack, 2019). Stating that low replicability can support a robust science implies that social psychology can be a robust science, even if average power of published studies is only 25%. Although the title implies that this is the topic of the article, the article does not address this question.

The second question is not about replicability. Rather it is about the value of actual replication studies. There is a way to connect the two questions. It may seem obvious that the value of replication studies decreases (a) the more studies test true hypotheses and (b) the higher the power of original studies is. The reason is that most replication studies are likely to be successful and confirm that the original result was a true positive result. In contrast, if most studies test false hypotheses and power is low, a high percentage of significant results are false positives and true positives are published with inflated effect sizes. In this case, replication studies are likely to fail, and only a small number of studies that succeed in a replication attempt actually contribute robust evidence; the rest is wasted. Not surprisingly, calls for more direct replication studies have arisen in social psychology where false positive rates are relatively high and power is low.

The need for replication studies also increases when researchers use questionable research practices to produce significant results. The use of these practices inflates the risk of false positives, which means only results that have been replicated in honest replication studies can be trusted. Stephan Lewandowsky and Klaus Oberauer (2020) recognize that QRPs are a problem, but they are not interested in addressing this issue. Instead, they “simulate an idealized and transparent scientific community that eschews p-hacking and other questionable research practices and conducts studies with adequate power (P = .8).

In philosophy it is well known that any conclusions that are logically valid, but rest on false assumptions may be false. Thus, the article simply does not speak to the actual problems or the consequences of low replicability for psychology as a science. However, articles about the replication crisis attract a lot of attention and citations, so the authors decided to present their fantasy simulations as if they speak about the replication crisis or ways to make psychology more robust and credible. They do not.

So, is it possible to have a robust science with low replicability? If you ask me, I don’t think so. I think social psychology needs to first become the science that Lewandowsky and Oberauer simulate: ban the use of QRPs, and conduct studies with 80% power. The open science movement is trying to make this happen. Lewandowsky and Oberauer seems to suggest that the open science movement is misguided by emphasizing replication studies. “Perhaps ironically, waste is reduced by withholding replication until after publication” The problem with this conclusion is that it rests on the assumption that original results are trustworthy (no QRPs, adequate power). These are exactly the conditions that make actual replication studies less important. Once original results have high replicability, it is less important to probe replicability with replication studies. Thus, we may all agree that a robust science cannot thrive with low replicability of original studies.

Once a p-hacker, always a p-hacker?

The 2010s have seen a replication crisis in social psychology (Schimmack, 2020). The main reason why it is difficult to replicate results from social psychology is that researchers used questionable research practices (QRPs, John et al., 2012) to produce more significant results than their low-powered designs warranted. A catchy term for these practices is p-hacking (Simonsohn, 2014).

New statistical techniques made it possible to examine whether published results were obtained with QRPs. In 2012, I used the incredibility index to show that Bem (2011) used QRPs to provide evidence for extrasensory perception (Schimmack, 2012). In the same article, I also suggested that Gailliot, Baumeister, DeWall, Maner, Plant, Tice, and Schmeichel, (2007) used QRPs to present evidence that suggested will-power relies on blood glucose levels. During the review process of my manuscript, Baumeister confirmed that QRPs were used (cf. Schimmack, 2014). Baumeister defended the use of these practices with a statement that the use of these practices was the norm in social psychology and that the use of these practices was not considered unethical.

The revelation that research practices were questionable casts a shadow on the history of social psychology. However, many also saw it as an opportunity to change and improve these practices (Świątkowski and Dompnier, 2017). Over the past decades, the evaluation of QRPs has changed. Many researchers now recognize that these practices inflate error rates, make published results difficult to replicate, and undermine the credibility of psychological science (Lindsay, 2019).

However, there are no general norms regarding these practices and some researchers continue to use them (e.g., Adam D. Galinsky, cf. Schimmack, 2019). This makes it difficult for readers of the social psychological literature to identify research that can be trusted or not, and the answer to this question has to be examined on a case by case basis. In this blog post, I examine the responses of Baumeister, Vohs, DeWall, and Schmeichel to the replication crisis and concerns that their results provide false evidence about the causes of will-power (Friese, Loschelder , Gieseler , Frankenbach & Inzlicht, 2019; Inzlicht, 2016).

To examine this question scientifically, I use test-statistics that are automatically extracted from psychology journals. I divide the test-statistics into those that were obtained until 2012, when awareness about QRPs emerged, and those published after 2012. The test-statistics are examined using z-curve (Brunner & Schimmack, 2019; Bartos & Schimmack, 2020). Results provide information about the expected replication rate and discovery rate. The use of QRPs is examined by comparing the observed discovery rate (how many published results are significant) to the expected discovery rate (how many tests that were conducted produced significant results).

Roy F. Baumeister’s replication rate was 60% (53% to 67%) before 2012 and 65% (57% to 74%) after 2012. The overlap of the 95% confidence intervals indicates that this small increase is not statistically reliable. Before 2012, the observed discovery rate was 70% and it dropped to 68% after 2012. Thus, there is no indication that non-significant results are reported more after 2012. The expected discovery rate was 32% before 2012 and 25% after 2012. Thus, there is also no change in the expected discovery rate and the expected discovery rate is much lower than the observed discovery rate. This discrepancy shows that QRPs were used before 2012 and after 2012. The 95%CI do not overlap before and after 2012, indicating that this discrepancy is statistically significant. Figure 1 shows the influence of QRPs when the observed non-significant results (histogram of z-scores below 1.96 in blue) is compared to the model prediction (grey curve). The discrepancy suggests a large file drawer of unreported statistical tests.

An old saying is that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks. So, the more interesting question is whether the younger contributors to the glucose paper changed their research practices.

The results for C. Nathan DeWall show no notable response to the replication crisis (Figure 2). The expected replication rate increased slightly from 61% to 65%, but the difference is not significant and visual inspection of the plots suggests that it is mostly due to a decrease in reporting p-values just below .05. One reason for this might be a new goal to p-hack at least to the level of .025 to avoid detection of p-hacking by p-curve analysis. The observed discovery rate is practically unchanged from 68% to 69%. The expected discovery rate increased only slightly from 28% to 35%, but the difference is not significant. More important, the expected discovery rates are significantly lower than the observed discovery rates before and after 2012. Thus, there is evidence that DeWall used questionable research practices before and after 2012, and there is no evidence that he changed his research practices.

The results for Brandon J. Schmeichel are even more discouraging (Figure 3). Here the expected replication rate decreased from 70% to 56%, although this decrease is not statistically significant. The observed discovery rate decreased significantly from 74% to 63%, which shows that more non-significant results are reported. Visual inspection shows that this is particularly the case for test-statistics close to zero. Further inspection of the article would be needed to see how these results are interpreted. More important, The expected discovery rates are significantly lower than the observed discovery rates before 2012 and after 2012. Thus, there is evidence that QRPs were used before and after 2012 to produce significant results. Overall, there is no evidence that research practices changed in response to the replication crisis.

The results for Kathleen D. Vohs also show no response to the replication crisis (Figure 4). The expected replication rate dropped slightly from 62% to 58%; the difference is not significant. The observed discovery rate dropped slightly from 69% to 66%, and the expected discovery rate decreased from 43% to 31%, although this difference is also not significant. Most important, the observed discovery rates are significantly higher than the expected discovery rates before 2012 and after 2012. Thus, there is clear evidence that questionable research practices were used before and after 2012 to inflate the discovery rate.

Conclusion

After concerns about research practices and replicability emerged in the 2010s, social psychologists have debated this issue. Some social psychologists changed their research practices to increase statistical power and replicability. However, other social psychologists have denied that there is a crisis and attributed replication failures to a number of other causes. Not surprisingly, some social psychologists also did not change their research practices. This blog post shows that Baumeister and his students have not changed research practices. They are able to publish questionable research because there has been no collective effort to define good research practices and to ban questionable practices and to treat the hiding of non-significant results as a breach of research ethics. Thus, Baumeister and his students are simply exerting their right to use questionable research practices, whereas others voluntarily implemented good, open science, practices. Given the freedom of social psychologists to decide which practices they use, social psychology as a field continuous to have a credibility problem. Editors who accept questionable research in their journals are undermining the credibility of their journal. Authors are well advised to publish in journals that emphasis replicability and credibility with open science badges and with a high replicability ranking (Schimmack, 2019).

Z-Curve.2.0

Preprint

Z-Curve Package

The new year and decade just started and I am excited to announce that publication of a pre-print that introduces Z-Curve.2.0 (Bartoš & Schimmack, 2020; Preprint). The ms. “Z-Curve.2.0: Estimating Replication Rates and Discovery Rates” is the product of a nearly year-long collaboration with František Bartoš.

Last year, František emailed me to introduce a new way of estimating z-curves finite mixture models with an EM-algorithm. We started working together on evaluating the density approach from Brunner & Schimmack (2019) and the EM algorithm. In the end, the EM algorithm performs a bit better although the density approach leaves some wiggle room to improve coverage for confidence intervals. Both methods produce useful estimates and confidence intervals with good coverage.

The collaboration with František was amazing and provides another example of the power of social media. Not only does it allow fast exchange of ideas, it also makes it possible to collaborate with people you might never meet otherwise. Just like I met Rickard Carlsson in person only several years after we became Facebook friends and started a journal together, I still have to meet František in person (hopefully this year).

František also created an R-package for z-curve ( Z-Curve Package ). We are pleased to make this package publicly available. Please try it out and give feedback so that we can improve it before František submits it to the R-team as an official package that can be downloaded.

Here is the abstract of the ms. and a figure that was created with the zcurve package.

Abstract

This article introduces z-curve.2.0 as a method that estimates the expected replication rate and the expected discovery rate based on the test-statistics of studies selected for significance. Z-curve.2.0 extends the work by Brunner and Schimmack (2019) in several ways. First, we show that a new estimation method using expectation-maximization outperforms the kernel-density approach of z-curve.1.0. Second, we examine the coverage of bootstrapped confidence intervals to provide information about the uncertainty in z-curve estimates. Third, we extended z-curve to estimate the number of all studies that were conducted, including studies with non-significant results that may not have been reported, solely on the basis of significant results. This allows us to estimate the expected discovery rate (EDR); that is, the percentage of significant results that were obtained in all studies. EDR can be used to assess the size of the file-drawer, estimate the maximum number of false positive results, and may provide a better estimate of the success rate in actual replication studies than the expected replication rate because exact replications are impossible.


Keywords: Power estimation, Post-hoc power analysis, Publication bias, Expectancy Maximization, Z-curve, Replicability, Meta-Science, Expected Replication Rate, Expected Discovery Rate, False Discovery Rate, File-Drawer

Example -Figure created with graph.zcurve package.

Data are original test-statistics of 90 studies with good replication studies from the Open Science Collaboration(OSC) rep. project (OSC, 2015). Publication bias is indicated by the observed discovery rate (85/90 = 94% significant results) when the z-curve estimate of the expected discovery rate is only 39%. The expected replication rate of 62% successful replications is based on the assumption that studies can be replicated exactly. However, with contextual sensitivity, the expected discovery rate is a better estimate of the success rate in replication studies and it is more in line with the actual success rate (well, failure rate, really) in the OSC project.

An Honorable Response to the Credibility Crisis by D.S. Lindsay: Fare Well

We all know what psychologists did before 2012. The name of the game was to get significant results that could be sold to a journal for publication. Some did it with more power and some did it with less power, but everybody did it.

In the beginning of the 2010s it became obvious that this was a flawed way to do science. Bem (2011) used this anything-goes to get significance approach to publish 9 significant demonstration of a phenomenon that does not exist: mental time-travel. The cat was out of the bag. There were only two questions. How many other findings were unreal and how would psychologists respond to the credibility crisis.

D. Steve Lindsay responded to the crisis by helping to implement tighter standards and to enforce these standards as editor of Psychological Science. As a result, Psychological Science has published more credible results over the past five years. At the end of his editorial term, Linday published a gutsy and honest account of his journey towards a better and more open psychological science. It starts with his own realization that his research practices were suboptimal.

Early in 2012, Geoff Cumming blew my mind with a talk that led me to realize that I had been conducting underpowered experiments for decades. In some lines of research in my lab, a predicted effect would come booming through in one experiment but melt away in the next.
My students and I kept trying to find conditions that yielded consistent statistical significance—tweaking items, instructions, exclusion rules—but we sometimes eventually threw in the towel
because results were maddeningly inconsistent. For example, a chapter by Lindsay
and Kantner (2011) reported 16 experiments with an on-again/off-again effect of feedback on recognition memory. Cumming’s talk explained that p values are very noisy. Moreover, when between-subjects designs are used to study small- to medium-sized effects, statistical
tests often yield nonsignificant outcomes (sometimes with huge p values) unless samples are very large.

Hard on the heels of Cumming’s talk, I read Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn’s (2011) “False-Positive Psychology” article, published in Psychological Science. Then I gobbled up several articles and blog posts on misuses of null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST). The
authors of these works make a convincing case that hypothesizing after the results are known (HARKing; Kerr, 1998) and other forms of “p hacking” (post hoc exclusions, transformations, addition of moderators, optional stopping, publication bias, etc.) are deeply problematic. Such practices are common in some areas of scientific psychology, as well as in some other life
sciences. These practices sometimes give rise to mistaken beliefs in effects that really do not exist. Combined with publication bias, they often lead to exaggerated estimates
of the sizes of real but small effects.

This quote is exceptional because few psychologists have openly talked about their research practices before (or after) 2012. It is an open secrete that questionable research practices were widely used and anonymous surveys support this (John et al., 2012), but nobody likes to talk about it. Lindsay’s frank account is an honorable exception in the spirit of true leaders who confront mistakes head on, just like a Nobel laureate who recently retracted a Science article (Frances Arnold).

1. Acknowledge your mistakes.

2. Learn from your mistakes.

3. Teach others from your mistakes.

4. Move beyond your mistakes.

Lindsay’s acknowledgement also makes it possible to examine what these research practices look like when we examine published results, and to see whether this pattern changes in response to awareness that certain practices were questionable.

So, I z-curved Lindsay’s published results from 1998 to 2012. The graph shows some evidence of QRPs, in that the model assumes more non-significant results (grey line from 0 to 1.96) than are actually observed (histogram of non-significant results). This is confirmed by a comparison of the observed discovery rate (70% of published results are significant) and the expected discovery rate (44%). However, the confidence intervals overlap. So this test of bias is not significant.

The replication rate is estimated to be 77%. This means that there is a 77% probability that repeating a test with a new sample (of equal size) would produce a significant result again. Even for just significant results (z = 2 to 2.5), the estimated replicability is still 45%. I have seen much worse results.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to see whether things improved. First of all, being editor of Psychological Science is full-time job. Thus, output has decreased. Maybe research also slowed down because studies were conducted with more care. I don’t know. I just know that there are very few statistics to examine.

Although the small sample size of tests makes results somewhat uncertain, the graph shows some changes in research practices. Replicability increased further to 88% and there is no loner a discrepancy between observed and expected discovery rate.

If psychology as a whole had responded like D.S. Lindsay it would be in a good position to start the new decade. The problem is that this response is an exception rather than the rule and some areas of psychology and some individual researchers have not changed at all since 2012. This is unfortunate because questionable research practices hurt psychology, especially when undergraduates and the wider public learn more and more how untrustworthy psychological science has been and often still us. Hopefully, reforms will come sooner than later or we may have to sing a swan song for psychological science.

Why Frontiers Should Retract Baumeister's Critique of Carter's Meta-Analysis

This blog post is heavily based on one of my first blog-posts in 2014 (Schimmack, 2014).  The blog post reports a meta-analysis of ego-depletion studies that used the hand-grip paradigm.  When I first heard about the hand-grip paradigm, I thought it was stupid because there is so much between-subject variance in physical strength.  However, then I learned that it is the only paradigm that uses a pre-post design, which removes between-subject variance from the error term. This made the hand-grip paradigm the most interesting paradigm because it has the highest power to detect ego-depletion effects.  I conducted a meta-analysis of the hand-grip studies and found clear evidence of publication bias.  This finding is very damaging to the wider ego-depletion research because other studies used between-subject designs with small samples which have very low power to detect small effects.

This prediction was confirmed in meta-analyses by Carter,E.C., Kofler, L.M., Forster, D.E., and McCulloch,M.E. (2015) that revealed publication bias in ego-depletion studies with other paradigms.

The results also explain why attempts to show ego-depletion effects with within-subject designs failed (Francis et al., 2018).  Within-subject designs increase power by removing fixed between-subject variance such as physical strength.  However, given the lack of evidence with the hand-grip paradigm it is not surprising that within-subject designs also failed to show ego-depletion effects with other dependent variables in within-subject designs.  Thus, these results further suggest that ego-depletion effects are too small to be used for experimental investigations of will-power.

Of course, Roy F. Baumeister doesn’t like this conclusion because his reputation is to a large extent based on the resource model of will-power.  His response to the evidence that most of the evidence is based on questionable practices that produced illusory evidence has been to attack the critics (cf. Schimmack, 2019).

In 2016, he paid to publish a critique of Carter’s (2015) meta-analysis in Frontiers of Psychology (Cunningham & Baumeister, 2016).   In this article, the authors question the results obtained by bias-tests that reveal publication bias and suggest that there is no evidence for ego-depletion effects.

Unfortunately, Cunningham and Baumeister’s (2016) article is cited frequently as if it contained some valid scientific arguments.

For example, Christodoulou, Lac, and Moore (2017) cite the article to dismiss the results of a PEESE analysis that suggests publication bias is present and there is no evidence that infants can add and subtract. Thus, there is a real danger that meta-analysts will use Cunningham & Baumeister’s (2016) article to dismiss evidence of publication bias and to provide false evidence for claims that rest on questionable research practices.

Fact Checking Cunningham and Baumeister’s Criticisms

Cunningham and Baumeister (2016) claim that results from bias tests are difficult to interpret, but there criticism is based on false arguments and inaccurate claims.

Confusing Samples and Populations

This scientifically sounding paragraph is a load of bull. The authors claim that inferential tests require sampling from a population and raise a question about the adequacy of a sample. However, bias tests do not work this way. They are tests of the population, namely the population of all of the studies that could be retrieved that tested a common hypothesis (e.g., all handgrip studies of ego-depletion). Maybe more studies exist than are available. Maybe the results based on the available studies differ from results if all studies were available, but that is irrelevant. The question is only whether the available studies are biased or not. So, why do we even test for significance? That is a good question. The test for significance only tells us whether bias is merely a product of random chance or whether it was introduced by questionable research practices. However, even random bias is bias. If a set of studies reports only significant results, and the observed power of the studies is only 70%, there is a discrepancy. If this discrepancy is not statistically significant, there is still a discrepancy. If it is statistically significant, we are allowed to attribute it to questionable research practices such as those that Baumeister and several others admitted using.

“We did run multiple studies, some of which did not work, and some of which worked better than others. You may think that not reporting the less successful studies is wrong, but that is how the field works.” (Roy Baumeister, personal email communication) (Schimmack, 2014).

Given the widespread use of questionable research practices in experimental social psychology, it is not surprising that bias-tests reveal bias. It is actually more surprising when these tests fail to reveal bias, which is most likely a problem of low statistical power (Renkewitz & Keiner, 2019).

Misunderstanding Power

The claims about power are not based on clearly defined constructs in statistics. Statistical power is a function of the strength of a signal (the population effect size) and the amount of noise (sampling error). Researches skills are not a part of statistical power. Results should be independent of a researcher. A researcher could of course pick procedures that maximize a signal (powerful interventions) or reduce sampling error (e.g., pre-post designs), but these factors play a role in the designing of a study. Once a study is carried out, the population effect size is what it was and the sampling error is what it was. Thus, honestly reported test statistics tell us about the signal-to-noise ratio in a study that was conducted. Skillful researchers would produce stronger test-statistics (higher t-values, F-values) than unskilled researchers. The problem for Baumeister and other ego-depletion researchers is that the t-values and F-values tend to be weak and suggest questionable research practices rather than skill produced significant results. In short, meta-analysis of test-statistics reveal whether researchers used skill or questionable research practices to produce significant results.

The reference to Morey (2013) suggests that there is a valid criticism of bias tests, but that is not the case. Power-based bias tests are based on sound statistical principles that were outlined by a statistician in the journal American Statistician (Sterling, Rosenbaum, & Weinkam, 1995). Building on this work, Jerry Brunner (professor of statistics) and I published theorems that provide the basis of bias tests like TES to reveal the use of questionable research practices (Brunner & Schimmack, 2019). The real challenge for bias tests is to estimate mean power without information about the population effect sizes. In this regard, TES is extremely conservative because it relies on a meta-analysis of observed effect sizes to estimate power. These effect sizes are inflated when questionable research practices were used, which makes the test conservative. However, there is a problem with TES when effect sizes are heterogeneous. This problem is avoided by alternative bias tests like the R-Index that I used to demonstrate publication bias in the handgrip studies of ego-depletion. In sum, bias tests like the R-Index and TES are based on solid mathematical foundations and simulation studies show that they work well in detecting the use of questionable research practices.

Confusing Absence of Evidence with Evidence of Absence

PET and PEESE are extension of Eggert’s regression test of publication bias. All methods relate sample sizes (or sampling error) to effect size estimates. Questionable research practices tend to introduce a negative correlation between sample size and effect sizes or a positive correlation between sampling error and effect sizes. The reason is that significance requires a signal to noise ratio of 2:1 for t-tests or 4:1 for F-tests to produce a significant result. To achieve this ratio with more noise (smaller sample, more sampling error), the signal has to be inflated more.

The novel contribution of PET and PEESE was to use the intercept of the regression model as an effect size estimate that corrects for publication bias. This estimate needs to be interpreted in the context of the sampling error of the regression model, using a 95%CI around the point estimate.

Carter et al. (2015) found that the 95%CI often included a value of zero, which implies that the data are too weak to reject the null-hypothesis. Such non-significant results are notoriously difficult to interpret because they neither support nor refute the null-hypothesis. The main conclusion that can be drawn from this finding is that the existing data are inconclusive.

This main conclusion does not change when the number of studies is less than 20. Stanley and Doucouliagos (2014) were commenting on the trustworthiness of point estimates and confidence intervals in smaller samples. Smaller samples introduce more uncertainty and we should be cautious in the interpretation of results that suggest there is an effect because the assumptions of the model are violated. However, if the results already show that there is no evidence, small samples merely further increase uncertainty and make the existing evidence even less conclusive.

Aside from the issues regarding the interpretation of the intercept, Cunningham and Baumeister also fail to address the finding that sample sizes and effect sizes were negatively correlated. If this negative correlation is not caused by questionable research practices, it must be caused by something else. Cunningham and Baumeister fail to provide an answer to this important question.

No Evidence of Flair and Skill

Earlier Cunningham and Baumeister (2016) claimed that power depends on researchers’ skills and they argue that new investigators may be less skilled than the experts who developed paradigms like Baumeister and colleagues.

However, they then point out that Carter et al.’s (2015) examined lab as a moderator and found no difference between studies conducted by Baumeister and colleagues or other laboratories.

Thus, there is no evidence whatsoever that Baumeister and colleagues were more skillful and produced more credible evidence for ego-depletion than other laboratories. The fact that everybody got ego-depletion effects can be attributed to the widespread use of questionable research practices that made it possible to get significant results even for implausible phenomena like extrasensory perception (John et al., 2012; Schimmack, 2012). Thus, the large number of studies that support ego-depletion merely shows that everybody used questionable research practices like Baumeister did (Schimmack, 2014; Schimmack, 2016), which is also true for many other areas of research in experimental social psychology (Schimmack, 2019). Francis (2014) found that 80% of articles showed evidence that QRPs were used.

Handgrip Replicability Analysis

The meta-analysis included 18 effect sizes based on handgrip studies.   Two unpublished studies (Ns = 24, 37) were not included in this analysis.   Seeley & Gardner (2003)’s study was excluded because it failed to use a pre-post design, which could explain the non-significant result. The meta-analysis reported two effect sizes for this study. Thus, 4 effects were excluded and the analysis below is based on the remaining 14 studies.

All articles presented significant effects of will-power manipulations on handgrip performance. Bray et al. (2008) reported three tests; one was deemed not significant (p = .10), one marginally significant (.06), and one was significant at p = .05 (p = .01). The results from the lowest p-value were used. As a result, the success rate was 100%.

Median observed power was 63%. The inflation rate is 37% and the R-Index is 26%. An R-Index of 22% is consistent with a scenario in which the null-hypothesis is true and all reported findings are type-I errors. Thus, the R-Index supports Carter and McCullough’s (2014) conclusion that the existing evidence does not provide empirical support for the hypothesis that will-power manipulations lower performance on a measure of will-power.

The R-Index can also be used to examine whether a subset of studies provides some evidence for the will-power hypothesis, but that this evidence is masked by the noise generated by underpowered studies with small samples. Only 7 studies had samples with more than 50 participants. The R-Index for these studies remained low (20%). Only two studies had samples with 80 or more participants. The R-Index for these studies increased to 40%, which is still insufficient to estimate an unbiased effect size.

One reason for the weak results is that several studies used weak manipulations of will-power (e.g., sniffing alcohol vs. sniffing water in the control condition). The R-Index of individual studies shows two studies with strong results (R-Index > 80). One study used a physical manipulation (standing one leg). This manipulation may lower handgrip performance, but this effect may not reflect an influence on will-power. The other study used a mentally taxing (and boring) task that is not physically taxing as well, namely crossing out “e”s. This task seems promising for a replication study.

Power analysis with an effect size of d = .2 suggests that a serious empirical test of the will-power hypothesis requires a sample size of N = 300 (150 per cell) to have 80% power in a pre-post study of will-power.

HandgripRindex

Conclusion

Baumeister has lost any credibility as a scientist. He is pretending to engage in a scientific dispute about the validity of ego-depletion research, but he is ignoring the most obvious evidence that has accumulated during the past decade. Social psychologists have misused the scientific method and engaged in a silly game of producing significant p-values that support their claims. Data were never used to test predictions and studies that failed to support hypotheses were not published.

“We did run multiple studies, some of which did not work, and some of which worked better than others. You may think that not reporting the less successful studies is wrong, but that is how the field works.” (Roy Baumeister, personal email communication)

As a result, the published record lacks credibility and cannot be used to provide empirical evidence for scientific claims. Ego-depletion is a glaring example of everything that went wrong in experimental social psychology. This is not surprising because Baumeister and his students used questionable research practices more than other social psychologists (Schimmack, 2018). Now he is trying to to repress this truth, which should not surprise any psychologist familiar with motivated biases and repressive coping. However, scientific journals should not publish his pathetic attempts to dismiss criticism of his work. Cunningham and Baumeister’s article provides not a single valid scientific argument. Frontiers of Psychology should retract the article.

References

Carter,E.C.,Kofler,L.M.,Forster,D.E.,and McCulloch,M.E. (2015).A series of meta-analytic tests of the depletion effect: Self-control does not seem to rely on a limited resource. J. Exp.Psychol.Gen. 144, 796–815. doi:10.1037/xge0000083

The Replicability Index Is the Most Powerful Tool to Detect Publication Bias in Meta-Analyses

Abstract

Methods for the detection of publication bias in meta-analyses were first introduced in the 1980s (Light & Pillemer, 1984). However, existing methods tend to have low statistical power to detect bias, especially when population effect sizes are heterogeneous (Renkewitz & Keiner, 2019). Here I show that the Replicability Index (RI) is a powerful method to detect selection for significance while controlling the type-I error risk better than the Test of Excessive Significance (TES). Unlike funnel plots and other regression methods, RI can be used without variation in sampling error across studies. Thus, it should be a default method to examine whether effect size estimates in a meta-analysis are inflated by selection for significance. However, the RI should not be used to correct effect size estimates. A significant results merely indicates that traditional effect size estimates are inflated by selection for significance or other questionable research practices that inflate the percentage of significant results.

Evaluating the Power and Type-I Error Rate of Bias Detection Methods

Just before the end of the year, and decade, Frank Renkewitz and Melanie Keiner published an important article that evaluated the performance of six bias detection methods in meta-analyses (Renkewitz & Keiner, 2019).

The article makes several important points.

1. Bias can distort effect size estimates in meta-analyses, but the amount of bias is sometimes trivial. Thus, bias detection is most important in conditions where effect sizes are inflated to a notable degree (say more than one-tenth of a standard deviation, e.g., from d = .2 to d = .3).

2. Several bias detection tools work well when studies are homogeneous (i.e. ,the population effect sizes are very similar). However, bias detection is more difficult when effect sizes are heterogeneous.

3. The most promising tool for heterogeneous data was the Test of Excessive Significance (Francis, 2013; Ioannidis, & Trikalinos, 2013). However, simulations without bias showed that the higher power of TES was achieved by a higher false-positive rate that exceeded the nominal level. The reason is that TES relies on the assumption that all studies have the same population effect size and this assumption is violated when population effect sizes are heterogeneous.

This blog post examines two new methods to detect publication bias and compares them to the TES and the Test of Insufficient Variance (TIVA) that performed well when effect sizes were homogeneous (Renkewitz & Keiner , 2019). These methods are not entirely new. One method is the Incredibility Index, which is similar to TES (Schimmack, 2012). The second method is the Replicability Index, which corrects estimates of observed power for inflation when bias is present.

The Basic Logic of Power-Based Bias Tests

The mathematical foundations for bias tests based on statistical power were introduced by Sterling et al. (1995). Statistical power is defined as the conditional probability of obtaining a significant result when the null-hypothesis is false. When the null-hypothesis is true, the probability of obtaining a significant result is set by the criterion for a type-I error, alpha. To simplify, we can treat cases where the null-hypothesis is true as the boundary value for power (Brunner & Schimmack, 2019). I call this unconditional power. Sterling et al. (1995) pointed out that for studies with heterogeneity in sample sizes, effect sizes or both, the discoery rate; that is the percentage of significant results, is predicted by the mean unconditional power of studies. This insight makes it possible to detect bias by comparing the observed discovery rate (the percentage of significant results) to the expected discovery rate based on the unconditional power of studies. The empirical challenge is to obtain useful estimates of unconditional mean power, which depends on the unknown population effect sizes.

Ioannidis and Trialinos (2007) were the first to propose a bias test that relied on a comparison of expected and observed discovery rates. The method is called Test of Excessive Significance (TES). They proposed a conventional meta-analysis of effect sizes to obtain an estimate of the population effect size, and then to use this effect size and information about sample sizes to compute power of individual studies. The final step was to compare the expected discovery rate (e.g., 5 out of 10 studies) with the observed discovery rate (8 out of 10 studies) with a chi-square test and to test the null-hypothesis of no bias with alpha = .10. They did point out that TES is biased when effect sizes are heterogeneous (see Renkewitz & Keiner, 2019, for a detailed discussion).

Schimmack (2012) proposed an alternative approach that does not assume a fixed effect sizes across studies, called the incredibility index. The first step is to compute observed-power for each study. The second step is to compute the average of these observed power estimates. This average effect size is then used as an estimate of the mean unconditional power. The final step is to compute the binomial probability of obtaining as many or more significant results that were observed for the estimated unconditional power. Schimmack (2012) showed that this approach avoids some of the problems of TES when effect sizes are heterogeneous. Thus, it is likely that the Incredibility Index produces fewer false positives than TES.

Like TES, the incredibility index has low power to detect bias because bias inflates observed power. Thus, the expected discovery rate is inflated, which makes it a conservative test of bias. Schimmack (2016) proposed a solution to this problem. As the inflation in the expected discovery rate is correlated with the amount of bias, the discrepancy between the observed and expected discovery rate indexes inflation. Thus, it is possible to correct the estimated discovery rate by the amount of observed inflation. For example, if the expected discovery rate is 70% and the observed discovery rate is 90%, the inflation is 20 percentage points. This inflation can be deducted from the expected discovery rate to get a less biased estimate of the unconditional mean power. In this example, this would be 70% – 20% = 50%. This inflation-adjusted estimate is called the Replicability Index. Although the Replicability Index risks a higher type-I error rate than the Incredibility Index, it may be more powerful and have a better type-I error control than TES.

To test these hypotheses, I conducted some simulation studies that compared the performance of four bias detection methods. The Test of Insufficient Variance (TIVA; Schimmack, 2015) was included because it has good power with homogeneous data (Renkewitz & Keiner, 2019). The other three tests were TES, ICI, and RI.

Selection bias was simulated with probabilities of 0, .1, .2, and 1. A selection probability of 0 implies that non-significant results are never published. A selection probability of .1 implies that there is a 10% chance that a non-significant result is published when it is observed. Finally, a selection probability of 1 implies that there is no bias and all non-significant results are published.

Effect sizes varied from 0 to .6. Heterogeneity was simulated with a normal distribution with SDs ranging from 0 to .6. Sample sizes were simulated by drawing from a uniform distribution with values between 20 and 40, 100, and 200 as maximum. The number of studies in a meta-analysis were 5, 10, 20, and 30. The focus was on small sets of studies because power to detect bias increases with the number of studies and power was often close to 100% with k = 30.

Each condition was simulated 100 times and the percentage of significant results with alpha = .10 (one-tailed) was used to compute power and type-I error rates.

RESULTS

Bias

Figure 1 shows a plot of the mean observed d-scores as a function of the mean population d-scores. In situations without heterogeneity, mean population d-scores corresponded to the simulated values of d = 0 to d = .6. However, with heterogeneity, mean population d-scores varied due to sampling from the normal distribution of population effect sizes.


The figure shows that bias could be negative or positive, but that overestimation is much more common than underestimation.  Underestimation was most likely when the population effect size was 0, there was no variability (SD = 0), and there was no selection for significance.  With complete selection for significance, bias always overestimated population effect sizes, because selection was simulated to be one-sided. The reason is that meta-analysis rarely show many significant results in both directions.  

An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) with number of studies (k), mean population effect size (mpd), heterogeneity of population effect sizes (SD), range of sample sizes (Nmax) and selection bias (sel.bias) showed a four-way interaction, t = 3.70.   This four-way interaction qualified main effects that showed bias decreases with effect sizes (d), heterogeneity (SD), range of sample sizes (N), and increased with severity of selection bias (sel.bias).  

The effect of selection bias is obvious in that effect size estimates are unbiased when there is no selection bias and increases with severity of selection bias.  Figure 2 illustrates the three way interaction for the remaining factors with the most extreme selection bias; that is, all non-significant results are suppressed. 

The most dramatic inflation of effect sizes occurs when sample sizes are small (N = 20-40), the mean population effect size is zero, and there is no heterogeneity (light blue bars). This condition simulates a meta-analysis where the null-hypothesis is true. Inflation is reduced, but still considerable (d = .42), when the population effect is large (d = .6). Heterogeneity reduces bias because it increases the mean population effect size. However, even with d = .6 and heterogeneity, small samples continue to produce inflated estimates by d = .25 (dark red). Increasing sample sizes (N = 20 to 200) reduces inflation considerably. With d = 0 and SD = 0, inflation is still considerable, d = .52, but all other conditions have negligible amounts of inflation, d < .10.

As sample sizes are known, they provide some valuable information about the presence of bias in a meta-analysis. If studies with large samples are available, it is reasonable to limit a meta-analysis to the larger and more trustworthy studies (Stanley, Jarrell, & Doucouliagos, 2010).

Discovery Rates

If all results are published, there is no selection bias and effect size estimates are unbiased. When studies are selected for significance, the amount of bias is a function of the amount of studies with non-significant results that are suppressed. When all non-significant results are suppressed, the amount of selection bias depends on the mean power of the studies before selection for significance which is reflected in the discovery rate (i.e., the percentage of studies with significant results). Figure 3 shows the discovery rates for the same conditions that were used in Figure 2. The lowest discovery rate exists when the null-hypothesis is true. In this case, only 2.5% of studies produce significant results that are published. The percentage is 2.5% and not 5% because selection also takes the direction of the effect into account. Smaller sample sizes (left side) have lower discovery rates than larger sample sizes (right side) because larger samples have more power to produce significant results. In addition, studies with larger effect sizes have higher discovery rates than studies with small effect sizes because larger effect sizes increase power. In addition, more variability in effect sizes increases power because variability increases the mean population effect sizes, which also increases power.

In conclusion, the amount of selection bias and the amount of inflation of effect sizes varies across conditions as a function of effect sizes, sample sizes, heterogeneity, and the severity of selection bias. The factorial design covers a wide range of conditions. A good bias detection method should have high power to detect bias across all conditions with selection bias and low type-I error rates across conditions without selection bias.

Overall Performance of Bias Detection Methods

Figure 4 shows the overall results for 235,200 simulations across a wide range of conditions. The results replicate Renkewitz and Keiner’s finding that TES produces more type-I errors than the other methods, although the average rate of type-I errors is below the nominal level of alpha = .10. The error rate of the incredibility index is practically zero, indicating that it is much more conservative than TES. The improvement for type-I errors does not come at the cost of lower power. TES and ICI have the same level of power. This finding shows that computing observed power for each individual study is superior than assuming a fixed effect size across studies. More important, the best performing method is the Replicability Index (RI), which has considerably more power because it corrects for inflation in observed power that is introduced by selection for significance. This is a promising results because one of the limitation of the bias tests examined by Renkewitz and Keiner was the low power to detect selection bias across a wide range of realistic scenarios.

Logistic regression analyses for power showed significant five-way interactions for TES, IC, and RI. For TIVA, two four-way interactions were significant. For type-I error rates no four-way interactions were significant, but at least one three-way interaction was significant. These results show that results systematic vary in a rather complex manner across the simulated conditions. The following results show the performance of the four methods in specific conditions.

Number of Studies (k)

Detection of bias is a function of the amount of bias and the number of studies. With small sets of studies (k = 5), it is difficult to detect power. In addition, low power can suppress false-positive rates because significant results without selection bias are even less likely than significant results with selection bias. Thus, it is important to examine the influence of the number of studies on power and false positive rates.

Figure 5 shows the results for power. TIVA does not gain much power with increasing sample sizes. The other three methods clearly become more powerful as sample sizes increase. However, only the R-Index shows good power with twenty studies and still acceptable studies with just 10 studies. The R-Index with 10 studies is as powerful as TES and ICI with 10 studies.

Figure 6 shows the results for the type-I error rates. Most important, the high power of the R-Index is not achieved by inflating type-I error rates, which are still well-below the nominal level of .10. A comparison of TES and ICI shows that ICI controls type-I error much better than TES. TES even exceeds the nominal level of .10 with 30 studies and this problem is going to increase as the number of studies gets larger.

Selection Rate

Renkewitz and Keiner noticed that power decreases when there is a small probability that non-significant results are published. To simplify the results for the amount of selection bias, I focused on the condition with n = 30 studies, which gives all methods the maximum power to detect selection bias. Figure 7 confirms that power to detect bias deteriorates when non-significant results are published. However, the influence of selection rate varies across methods. TIVA is only useful when only significant results are selected, but even TES and ICI have only modest power even if the probability of a non-significant result to be published is only 10%. Only the R-Index still has good power, and power is still higher with a 20% chance to select a non-significant result than with a 10% selection rate for TES and ICI.

Population Mean Effect Size

With complete selection bias (no significant results), power had ceiling effects. Thus, I used k = 10 to illustrate the effect of population effect sizes on power and type-I error rates. (Figure 8)

In general, power decreased as the population mean effect sizes increased. The reason is that there is less selection because the discovery rates are higher. Power decreased quickly to unacceptable levels (< 50%) for all methods except the R-Index. The R-Index maintained good power even with the maximum effect size of d = .6.

Figure 9 shows that the good power of the R-Index is not achieved by inflating type-I error rates. The type-I error rate is well below the nominal level of .10. In contrast, TES exceeds the nominal level with d = .6.

Variability in Population Effect Sizes

I next examined the influence of heterogeneity in population effect sizes on power and type-I error rates. The results in Figure 10 show that hetergeneity decreases power for all methods. However, the effect is much less sever for the RI than for the other methods. Even with maximum heterogeneity, it has good power to detect publication bias.

Figure 11 shows that the high power of RI is not achieved by inflating type-I error rates. The only method with a high error-rate is TES with high heterogeneity.

Variability in Sample Sizes

With a wider range of sample sizes, average power increases. And with higher power, the discovery rate increases and there is less selection for significance. This reduces power to detect selection for significance. This trend is visible in Figure 12. Even with sample sizes ranging from 20 to 100, TIVA, TES, and IC have modest power to detect bias. However, RI maintains good levels of power even when sample sizes range from 20 to 200.

Once more, only TES shows problems with the type-I error rate when heterogeneity is high (Figure 13). Thus, the high power of RI is not achieved by inflating type-I error rates.

Stress Test

The following analyses examined RI’s performance more closely. The effect of selection bias is self-evident. As more non-significant results are available, power to detect bias decreases. However, bias also decreases. Thus, I focus on the unfortunately still realistic scenario that only significant results are published. I focus on the scenario with the most heterogeneity in sample sizes (N = 20 to 200) because it has the lowest power to detect bias. I picked the lowest and highest levels of population effect sizes and variability to illustrate the effect of these factors on power and type-I error rates. I present results for all four set sizes.

The results for power show that with only 5 studies, bias can only be detected with good power if the null-hypothesis is true. Heterogeneity or large effect sizes produce unacceptably low power. This means that the use of bias tests for small sets of studies is lopsided. Positive results strongly indicate severe bias, but negative results are inconclusive. With 10 studies, power is acceptable for homogeneous and high effect sizes as well as for heterogeneous and low effect sizes, but not for high effect sizes and high heterogeneity. With 20 or more studies, power is good for all scenarios.

The results for the type-I error rates reveal one scenario with dramatically inflated type-I error rates, namely meta-analysis with a large population effect size and no heterogeneity in population effect sizes.

Solutions

The high type-I error rate is limited to cases with high power. In this case, the inflation correction over-corrects. A solution to this problem is found by considering the fact that inflation is a non-linear function of power. With unconditional power of .05, selection for significance inflates observed power to .50, a 10 fold increase. However, power of .50 is inflated to .75, which is only a 50% increase. Thus, I modified the R-Index formula and made inflation contingent on the observed discovery rate.

RI2 = Mean.Observed.Power – (Observed Discovery Rate – Mean.Observed.Power)*(1-Observed.Discovery.Rate). This version of the R-Index reduces power, although power is still superior to the IC.

It also fixed the type-I error problem at least with sample sizes up to N = 30.

Example 1: Bem (2011)

Bem’s (2011) sensational and deeply flawed article triggered the replication crisis and the search for bias-detection tools (Francis, 2012; Schimmack, 2012). Table 1 shows that all tests indicate that Bem used questionable research practices to produce significant results in 9 out of 10 tests. This is confirmed by examination of his original data (Schimmack, 2018). For example, for one study, Bem combined results from four smaller samples with non-significant results into one sample with a significant result. The results also show that both versions of the Replicability Index are more powerful than the other tests.

Testp1/p
TIVA0.008125
TES0.01856
IC0.03132
RI0.0000245754
RI20.000137255

Example 2: Francis (2014) Audit of Psychological Science

Francis audited multiple-study articles in the journal Psychological Science from 2009-2012. The main problem with the focus on single articles is that they often contain relatively few studies and the simulation studies showed that bias tests tend to have low power if 5 or fewer studies are available (Renkewitz & Keiner, 2019). Nevertheless, Francis found that 82% of the investigated articles showed signs of bias, p < .10. This finding seems very high given the low power of TES in the simulation studies. It would mean that selection bias in these articles was very high and power of the studies was extremely low and homogeneous, which provides the ideal conditions to detect bias. However, the high type-I error rates of TES under some conditions may have produced more false positive results than the nominal level of .10 suggests. Moreover, Francis (2014) modified TES in ways that may have further increased the risk of false positives. Thus, it is interesting to reexamine the 44 studies with other bias tests. Unlike Francis, I coded one focal hypothesis test per study.

I then applied the bias detection methods. Table 2 shows the p-values.

YearAuthorFrancisTIVATESICRI1RI2
2012Anderson, Kraus, Galinsky, & Keltner0.1670.3880.1220.3870.1110.307
2012Bauer, Wilkie, Kim, & Bodenhausen0.0620.0040.0220.0880.0000.013
2012Birtel & Crisp0.1330.0700.0760.1930.0040.064
2012Converse & Fishbach0.1100.1300.1610.3190.0490.199
2012Converse, Risen, & Carter Karmic0.0430.0000.0220.0650.0000.010
2012Keysar, Hayakawa, &0.0910.1150.0670.1190.0030.043
2012Leung et al.0.0760.0470.0630.1190.0030.043
2012Rounding, Lee, Jacobson, & Ji0.0360.1580.0750.1520.0040.054
2012Savani & Rattan0.0640.0030.0280.0670.0000.017
2012van Boxtel & Koch0.0710.4960.7180.4980.2000.421
2011Evans, Horowitz, & Wolfe0.4260.9380.9860.6280.3790.606
2011Inesi, Botti, Dubois, Rucker, & Galinsky0.0260.0430.0610.1220.0030.045
2011Nordgren, Morris McDonnell, & Loewenstein0.0900.0260.1140.1960.0120.094
2011Savani, Stephens, & Markus0.0630.0270.0300.0800.0000.018
2011Todd, Hanko, Galinsky, & Mussweiler0.0430.0000.0240.0510.0000.005
2011Tuk, Trampe, & Warlop0.0920.0000.0280.0970.0000.017
2010Balcetis & Dunning0.0760.1130.0920.1260.0030.048
2010Bowles & Gelfand0.0570.5940.2080.2810.0430.183
2010Damisch, Stoberock, & Mussweiler0.0570.0000.0170.0730.0000.007
2010de Hevia & Spelke0.0700.3510.2100.3410.0620.224
2010Ersner-Hershfield, Galinsky, Kray, & King0.0730.0040.0050.0890.0000.013
2010Gao, McCarthy, & Scholl0.1150.1410.1890.3610.0410.195
2010Lammers, Stapel, & Galinsky0.0240.0220.1130.0610.0010.021
2010Li, Wei, & Soman0.0790.0300.1370.2310.0220.129
2010Maddux et al.0.0140.3440.1000.1890.0100.087
2010McGraw & Warren0.0810.9930.3020.1480.0060.066
2010Sackett, Meyvis, Nelson, Converse, & Sackett0.0330.0020.0250.0480.0000.011
2010Savani, Markus, Naidu, Kumar, & Berlia0.0580.0110.0090.0620.0000.014
2010Senay, Albarracín, & Noguchi0.0900.0000.0170.0810.0000.010
2010West, Anderson, Bedwell, & Pratt0.1570.2230.2260.2870.0320.160
2009Alter & Oppenheimer0.0710.0000.0410.0530.0000.006
2009Ashton-James, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chartrand0.0350.1750.1330.2700.0250.142
2009Fast & Chen0.0720.0060.0360.0730.0000.014
2009Fast, Gruenfeld, Sivanathan, & Galinsky0.0690.0080.0420.1180.0010.030
2009Garcia & Tor0.0891.0000.4220.1900.0190.117
2009González & McLennan0.1390.0800.1940.3030.0550.208
2009Hahn, Close, & Graf0.3480.0680.2860.4740.1750.390
2009Hart & Albarracín0.0350.0010.0480.0930.0000.015
2009Janssen & Caramazza0.0830.0510.3100.3920.1150.313
2009Jostmann, Lakens, & Schubert0.0900.0000.0260.0980.0000.018
2009Labroo, Lambotte, & Zhang0.0080.0540.0710.1480.0030.051
2009Nordgren, van Harreveld, & van der Pligt0.1000.0140.0510.1350.0020.041
2009Wakslak & Trope0.0610.0080.0290.0650.0000.010
2009Zhou, Vohs, & Baumeister0.0410.0090.0430.0970.0020.036

The Figure shows the percentage of significant results for the various methods. The results confirm that despite the small number of studies, the majority of multiple-study articles show significant evidence of bias. Although statistical significance does not speak directly to effect sizes, the fact that these tests were significant with a small set of studies implies that the amount of bias is large. This is also confirmed by a z-curve analysis that provides an estimate of the average bias across all studies (Schimmack, 2019).

A comparison of the methods shows with real data that the R-Index (RI1) is the most powerful method and even more powerful than Francis’s method that used multiple studies from a single study. The good performance of TIVA shows that population effect sizes are rather homogeneous as TIVA has low power with heterogeneous data. The Incredibility Index has the worst performance because it has an ultra-conservative type-I error rate. The most important finding is that the R-Index can be used with small sets of studies to demonstrate moderate to large bias.

Discussion

In 2012, I introduced the Incredibility Index as a statistical tool to reveal selection bias; that is, the published results were selected for significance from a larger number of results. I compared the IC with TES and pointed out some advantages of averaging power rather than effect sizes. However, I did not present extensive simulation studies to compare the performance of the two tests. In 2014, I introduced the replicability index to predict the outcome of replication studies. The replicability index corrects for the inflation of observed power when selection for significance is present. I did not think about RI as a bias test. However, Renkewitz and Keiner (2019) demonstrated that TES has low power and inflated type-I error rates. Here I examined whether IC performed better than TES and I found it did. Most important, it has much more conservative type-I error rates even with extreme heterogeneity. The reason is that selection for significance inflates observed power which is used to compute the expected percentage of significant results. This led me to see whether the bias correction that is used to compute the Replicability Index can boost power, while maintaining acceptable type-I error rates. The present results shows that this is the case for a wide range of scenarios. The only exception are meta-analysis of studies with a high population effect size and low heterogeneity in effect sizes. To avoid this problem, I created an alternative R-Index that reduces the inflation adjustment as a function of the percentage of non-significant results that are reported. I showed that the R-Index is a powerful tool that detects bias in Bem’s (2011) article and in a large number of multiple-study articles published in Psychological Science. In conclusion, the replicability index is the most powerful test for the presence of selection bias and it should be routinely used in meta-analyses to ensure that effect sizes estimates are not inflated by selective publishing of significant results. As the use of questionable practices is no longer acceptable, the R-Index can be used by editors to triage manuscripts with questionable results or to ask for a new, pre-registered, well-powered additional study. The R-Index can also be used in tenure and promotion evaluations to reward researchers that publish credible results that are likely to replicate.

References

Francis, G. (2013). Replication, statistical consistency, and publication bias. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 57, 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2013.02.003

Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Trikalinos, T. A. (2007). An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings. Clinical Trials: Journal of the Society for Clinical Trials, 4, 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774507079441

 R. J. Light; D. B. Pillemer (1984). Summing up: The Science of Reviewing Research. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Renkewitz, F., & Keiner, M. (2019). How to Detect Publication Bias in Psychological Research
A Comparative Evaluation of Six Statistical Methods. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 227, 261-279. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000386.

Schimmack, U. (2012). The ironic effect of significant results on the credibility of multiple-study articles. Psychological Methods, 17, 551–566. doi:10.1037/a0029487

Schimmack, U. (2014, December 30). The test of insufficient variance (TIVA): A new tool for the detection of questionable research practices [Blog Post]. Retrieved from https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2014/12/30/the-test-ofinsufficient-
variance-tiva-a-new-tool-for-the-detection-ofquestionable-
research-practices/

Schimmack, U. (2016). A revised introduction to the R-Index. Retrieved
from https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2016/01/31/a-revisedintroduction-
to-the-r-index/

Sterling, T. D., Rosenbaum, W. L., & Weinkam, J. J. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. The American Statistician, 49, 108–112.