↓ Skip to main content

Bayesian Tests to Quantify the Result of a Replication Attempt

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
224 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
230 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bayesian Tests to Quantify the Result of a Replication Attempt
Published in
Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, August 2014
DOI 10.1037/a0036731
Pubmed ID
Authors

Josine Verhagen, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers

Abstract

Replication attempts are essential to the empirical sciences. Successful replication attempts increase researchers' confidence in the presence of an effect, whereas failed replication attempts induce skepticism and doubt. However, it is often unclear to what extent a replication attempt results in success or failure. To quantify replication outcomes we propose a novel Bayesian replication test that compares the adequacy of 2 competing hypotheses. The 1st hypothesis is that of the skeptic and holds that the effect is spurious; this is the null hypothesis that postulates a zero effect size, H₀ : δ = 0. The 2nd hypothesis is that of the proponent and holds that the effect is consistent with the one found in the original study, an effect that can be quantified by a posterior distribution. Hence, the 2nd hypothesis-the replication hypothesis-is given by Hr : δ ∼ "posterior distribution from original study." The weighted-likelihood ratio between H₀ and Hr quantifies the evidence that the data provide for replication success and failure. In addition to the new test, we present several other Bayesian tests that address different but related questions concerning a replication study. These tests pertain to the independent conclusions of the separate experiments, the difference in effect size between the original experiment and the replication attempt, and the overall conclusion based on the pooled results. Together, this suite of Bayesian tests allows a relatively complete formalization of the way in which the result of a replication attempt alters our knowledge of the phenomenon at hand. The use of all Bayesian replication tests is illustrated with 3 examples from the literature. For experiments analyzed using the t test, computation of the new replication test only requires the t values and the numbers of participants from the original study and the replication study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
Netherlands 3 1%
Germany 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 210 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 24%
Researcher 53 23%
Student > Master 24 10%
Student > Bachelor 17 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 13 6%
Other 43 19%
Unknown 25 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 118 51%
Neuroscience 19 8%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Mathematics 7 3%
Other 30 13%
Unknown 39 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 December 2018.
All research outputs
#4,102,121
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental Psychology. General
#795
of 2,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,927
of 240,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental Psychology. General
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,600 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 240,206 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.