Psychological methods最新文献

Cross-classified random effects modeling (CCREM) is a common approach for analyzing cross-classified data in psychology, education research, and other fields. However, when the focus of a study is on the regression coefficients at Level 1 rather than on the random effects, ordinary least squares regression with cluster robust variance estimators (OLS-CRVE) or fixed effects regression with CRVE (FE-CRVE) could be appropriate approaches. These alternative methods are potentially advantageous because they rely on weaker assumptions than those required by CCREM. We conducted a Monte Carlo Simulation study to compare the performance of CCREM, OLS-CRVE, and FE-CRVE in models, including conditions where homoscedasticity assumptions and exogeneity assumptions held and conditions where they were violated, as well as conditions with unmodeled random slopes. We found that CCREM out-performed the alternative approaches when its assumptions are all met. However, when homoscedasticity assumptions are violated, OLS-CRVE and FE-CRVE provided similar or better performance than CCREM. When the exogeneity assumption is violated, only FE-CRVE provided adequate performance. Further, OLS-CRVE and FE-CRVE provided more accurate inferences than CCREM in the presence of unmodeled random slopes. Thus, we recommend two-way FE-CRVE as a good alternative to CCREM, particularly if the homoscedasticity or exogeneity assumptions of the CCREM might be in doubt. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Goldberg's (2006) bass-ackward approach to elucidating the hierarchical structure of individual differences data has been used widely to improve our understanding of the relationships among constructs of varying levels of granularity. The traditional approach has been to extract a single component or factor on the first level of the hierarchy, two on the second level, and so on, treating the correlations between adjoining levels akin to path coefficients in a hierarchical structure. This article proposes three modifications to the traditional approach with a particular focus on examining associations among all levels of the hierarchy: (a) identify and remove redundant elements that perpetuate through multiple levels of the hierarchy; (b) (optionally) identify and remove artefactual elements; and (c) plot the strongest correlations among the remaining elements to identify their hierarchical associations. Together these steps can offer a simpler and more complete picture of the underlying hierarchical structure among a set of observed variables. The rationale for each step is described, illustrated in a hypothetical example and three basic simulations, and then applied in real data. The results are compared with the traditional bass-ackward approach together with agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis, and a basic tutorial with code is provided to apply the extended bass-ackward approach in other data. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Studies of interaction effects are of great interest because they identify crucial interplay between predictors in explaining outcomes. Previous work has considered several potential sources of statistical bias and substantive misinterpretation in the study of interactions, but less attention has been devoted to the role of the outcome variable in such research. Here, we consider bias and false discovery associated with estimates of interaction parameters as a function of the distributional and metric properties of the outcome variable. We begin by illustrating that, for a variety of noncontinuously distributed outcomes (i.e., binary and count outcomes), attempts to use the linear model for recovery leads to catastrophic levels of bias and false discovery. Next, focusing on transformations of normally distributed variables (i.e., censoring and noninterval scaling), we show that linear models again produce spurious interaction effects. We provide explanations offering geometric and algebraic intuition as to why interactions are a challenge for these incorrectly specified models. In light of these findings, we make two specific recommendations. First, a careful consideration of the outcome's distributional properties should be a standard component of interaction studies. Second, researchers should approach research focusing on interactions with heightened levels of scrutiny. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Most scientific disciplines use significance testing to draw conclusions about experimental or observational data. This classical approach provides a theoretical guarantee for controlling the number of false positives across a set of hypothesis tests, making it an appealing framework for scientists seeking to limit the number of false effects or associations that they claim to observe. Unfortunately, this theoretical guarantee applies to few experiments, and the true false positive rate (FPR) is much higher. Scientists have plenty of freedom to choose the error rate to control, the tests to include in the adjustment, and the method of correction, making strong error control difficult to attain. In addition, hypotheses are often tested after finding unexpected relationships or patterns, the data are analyzed in several ways, and analyses may be run repeatedly as data accumulate. As a result, adjusted p values are too small, incorrect conclusions are often reached, and results are harder to reproduce. In the following, I argue why the FPR is rarely controlled meaningfully and why shrinking parameter estimates is preferable to p value adjustments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Simulation studies are widely used for evaluating the performance of statistical methods in psychology. However, the quality of simulation studies can vary widely in terms of their design, execution, and reporting. In order to assess the quality of typical simulation studies in psychology, we reviewed 321 articles published in Psychological Methods, Behavior Research Methods, and Multivariate Behavioral Research in 2021 and 2022, among which 100/321 = 31.2% report a simulation study. We find that many articles do not provide complete and transparent information about key aspects of the study, such as justifications for the number of simulation repetitions, Monte Carlo uncertainty estimates, or code and data to reproduce the simulation studies. To address this problem, we provide a summary of the ADEMP (aims, data-generating mechanism, estimands and other targets, methods, performance measures) design and reporting framework from Morris et al. (2019) adapted to simulation studies in psychology. Based on this framework, we provide ADEMP-PreReg, a step-by-step template for researchers to use when designing, potentially preregistering, and reporting their simulation studies. We give formulae for estimating common performance measures, their Monte Carlo standard errors, and for calculating the number of simulation repetitions to achieve a desired Monte Carlo standard error. Finally, we give a detailed tutorial on how to apply the ADEMP framework in practice using an example simulation study on the evaluation of methods for the analysis of pre-post measurement experiments. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).