Written by: Stephen Hsu
Primary Source: Information Processing
Bad news for psychology — only 39 of 100 published findings were replicated in a recent coordinated effort.
Nature | News: An ambitious effort to replicate 100 research findings in psychology ended last week — and the data look worrying. Results posted online on 24 April, which have not yet been peer-reviewed, suggest that key findings from only 39 of the published studies could be reproduced. …
The article goes on:
But the situation is more nuanced than the top-line numbers suggest (See graphic, ‘Reliability test’). Of the 61 non-replicated studies, scientists classed 24 as producing findings at least “moderately similar” to those of the original experiments, even though they did not meet pre-established criteria, such as statistical significance, that would count as a successful replication. [ Yeah, right. ]
This makes me suspect bounded cognition — humans trusting their post hoc stories and intuition instead of statistical criteria chosen before planned replication attempts.
The most tragic thing about Ioannidis’s work on low replication rates and wasted research funding is that while medical researchers might pay lip service to his results (which are highly cited), they typically have not actually grasped the implications for their own work. In particular, they typically have not updated their posteriors to reflect the low reliability of research results, even in the top journals.