优化研究成果:如何改进心理学研究方法?

IF 23.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Annual review of psychology Pub Date : 2022-01-04 Epub Date: 2021-10-06 DOI:10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-094927
Jeff Miller, Rolf Ulrich
{"title":"优化研究成果:如何改进心理学研究方法?","authors":"Jeff Miller,&nbsp;Rolf Ulrich","doi":"10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-094927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Recent evidence suggests that research practices in psychology and many other disciplines are far less effective than previously assumed, which has led to what has been called a \"crisis of confidence\" in psychological research (e.g., Pashler & Wagenmakers 2012). In response to the perceived crisis, standard research practices have come under intense scrutiny, and various changes have been suggested to improve them. The burgeoning field of metascience seeks to use standard quantitative data-gathering and modeling techniques to understand the reasons for inefficiency, to assess the likely effects of suggested changes, and ultimately to tell psychologists how to do better science. We review the pros and cons of suggested changes, highlighting the many complex research trade-offs that must be addressed to identify better methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":8010,"journal":{"name":"Annual review of psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":23.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimizing Research Output: How Can Psychological Research Methods Be Improved?\",\"authors\":\"Jeff Miller,&nbsp;Rolf Ulrich\",\"doi\":\"10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-094927\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Recent evidence suggests that research practices in psychology and many other disciplines are far less effective than previously assumed, which has led to what has been called a \\\"crisis of confidence\\\" in psychological research (e.g., Pashler & Wagenmakers 2012). In response to the perceived crisis, standard research practices have come under intense scrutiny, and various changes have been suggested to improve them. The burgeoning field of metascience seeks to use standard quantitative data-gathering and modeling techniques to understand the reasons for inefficiency, to assess the likely effects of suggested changes, and ultimately to tell psychologists how to do better science. We review the pros and cons of suggested changes, highlighting the many complex research trade-offs that must be addressed to identify better methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8010,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual review of psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":23.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual review of psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-094927\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/10/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual review of psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-094927","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

最近的证据表明,心理学和许多其他学科的研究实践远不如以前想象的那么有效,这导致了心理学研究中的“信任危机”(例如,Pashler & Wagenmakers, 2012)。为了应对这种危机,标准的研究实践受到了严格的审查,并提出了各种改进建议。新兴的元科学领域试图使用标准的定量数据收集和建模技术来理解效率低下的原因,评估建议的变化可能产生的影响,并最终告诉心理学家如何更好地进行科学研究。我们回顾了建议的改变的利弊,强调了许多复杂的研究权衡,必须解决,以确定更好的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Optimizing Research Output: How Can Psychological Research Methods Be Improved?

Recent evidence suggests that research practices in psychology and many other disciplines are far less effective than previously assumed, which has led to what has been called a "crisis of confidence" in psychological research (e.g., Pashler & Wagenmakers 2012). In response to the perceived crisis, standard research practices have come under intense scrutiny, and various changes have been suggested to improve them. The burgeoning field of metascience seeks to use standard quantitative data-gathering and modeling techniques to understand the reasons for inefficiency, to assess the likely effects of suggested changes, and ultimately to tell psychologists how to do better science. We review the pros and cons of suggested changes, highlighting the many complex research trade-offs that must be addressed to identify better methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annual review of psychology
Annual review of psychology 医学-心理学
CiteScore
47.30
自引率
0.80%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: The Annual Review of Psychology, a publication that has been available since 1950, provides comprehensive coverage of the latest advancements in psychological research. It encompasses a wide range of topics, including the biological underpinnings of human behavior, the intricacies of our senses and perception, the functioning of the mind, animal behavior and learning, human development, psychopathology, clinical and counseling psychology, social psychology, personality, environmental psychology, community psychology, and much more. In a recent development, the current volume of this esteemed journal has transitioned from a subscription-based model to an open access format as part of the Annual Reviews' Subscribe to Open initiative. As a result, all articles published in this volume are now freely accessible to the public under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
期刊最新文献
The Psychology of Athletic Endeavor. Understanding Human Object Vision: A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Representations. Gender Inclusion and Fit in STEM. Understanding the Need for Sleep to Improve Cognition. Self-Compassion: Theory, Method, Research, and Intervention.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1