对心理学论文中使用的统计数据的分析

Q4 Psychology Psihologia Resurselor Umane Pub Date : 2020-01-27 DOI:10.24837/PRU.2009.2.328
M. Popa
{"title":"对心理学论文中使用的统计数据的分析","authors":"M. Popa","doi":"10.24837/PRU.2009.2.328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses the statistical procedures used in the proceedings of the one of the psychology conferences regularly organized in Romania. 111 papers in six branches of applied psychology were scrutinized. The analysis was structured on descriptive statistics (numerical and graphical), and inferential statistics (parametric and nonparametric). Was also pursued the extent to which papers complied with APA recommendations on the reporting of confidence limits and size effect. Results: 64.9% of the papers reported statistical results. The sections with more statistical based papers are military psychology (85.7%) and industrial-organizational psychology (84%). On the other hand, only 52.4% papers on educational psychology reported statistics procedures. The average of the reported samples was 190 subjects (minimum 10, maximum 1519). A percentage of 26.4% of works includes at least one statistical descriptive indicator, while 31.9% of works containing statistics, have no descriptive indicators. The graphics used are mostly bar and pie. Regarding inferential statistics, 47.2% of work contains at least one statistical test, and 36.1% have none statistical test. The most frequent utilized tests are Pearson r and t tests. It was recorded no single case of reporting effect sizes and confidence limits. Conclusions: The results allow us to appreciate that the papers presented at scientific events, most of them by young psychologists, contain a relative insufficiently matured statistical analysis, and often insufficient connected to the problem studied. We must appreciate, however, as positive the interest in empirical research and statistical analysis of results.","PeriodicalId":37470,"journal":{"name":"Psihologia Resurselor Umane","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An analysis of the statistics used in psychological papers\",\"authors\":\"M. Popa\",\"doi\":\"10.24837/PRU.2009.2.328\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article analyses the statistical procedures used in the proceedings of the one of the psychology conferences regularly organized in Romania. 111 papers in six branches of applied psychology were scrutinized. The analysis was structured on descriptive statistics (numerical and graphical), and inferential statistics (parametric and nonparametric). Was also pursued the extent to which papers complied with APA recommendations on the reporting of confidence limits and size effect. Results: 64.9% of the papers reported statistical results. The sections with more statistical based papers are military psychology (85.7%) and industrial-organizational psychology (84%). On the other hand, only 52.4% papers on educational psychology reported statistics procedures. The average of the reported samples was 190 subjects (minimum 10, maximum 1519). A percentage of 26.4% of works includes at least one statistical descriptive indicator, while 31.9% of works containing statistics, have no descriptive indicators. The graphics used are mostly bar and pie. Regarding inferential statistics, 47.2% of work contains at least one statistical test, and 36.1% have none statistical test. The most frequent utilized tests are Pearson r and t tests. It was recorded no single case of reporting effect sizes and confidence limits. Conclusions: The results allow us to appreciate that the papers presented at scientific events, most of them by young psychologists, contain a relative insufficiently matured statistical analysis, and often insufficient connected to the problem studied. We must appreciate, however, as positive the interest in empirical research and statistical analysis of results.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37470,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psihologia Resurselor Umane\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psihologia Resurselor Umane\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24837/PRU.2009.2.328\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psihologia Resurselor Umane","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24837/PRU.2009.2.328","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文分析了罗马尼亚定期组织的心理学会议记录中使用的统计程序。对应用心理学六个分支的111篇论文进行了审查。该分析基于描述性统计(数字和图形)和推断统计(参数和非参数)。还探讨了文件在多大程度上符合APA关于报告置信限度和规模效应的建议。结果:64.9%的论文报告了统计结果。统计论文较多的部分是军事心理学(85.7%)和工业组织心理学(84%)。另一方面,只有52.4%的教育心理学论文报道了统计程序。报告样本的平均值为190名受试者(最少10名,最多1519名)。26.4%的作品至少包含一个统计描述性指标,而31.9%的包含统计数据的作品没有描述性指标。使用的图形主要是条形图和饼图。关于推断统计学,47.2%的工作至少包含一个统计检验,36.1%的工作没有统计检验。最常用的检验是皮尔逊r检验和t检验。没有记录到任何一例报告效应大小和置信限的病例。结论:研究结果让我们意识到,在科学活动上发表的论文,其中大多数是由年轻的心理学家撰写的,包含了相对不够成熟的统计分析,而且往往与所研究的问题联系不足。然而,我们必须认识到对实证研究和结果统计分析的兴趣是积极的。
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
An analysis of the statistics used in psychological papers
This article analyses the statistical procedures used in the proceedings of the one of the psychology conferences regularly organized in Romania. 111 papers in six branches of applied psychology were scrutinized. The analysis was structured on descriptive statistics (numerical and graphical), and inferential statistics (parametric and nonparametric). Was also pursued the extent to which papers complied with APA recommendations on the reporting of confidence limits and size effect. Results: 64.9% of the papers reported statistical results. The sections with more statistical based papers are military psychology (85.7%) and industrial-organizational psychology (84%). On the other hand, only 52.4% papers on educational psychology reported statistics procedures. The average of the reported samples was 190 subjects (minimum 10, maximum 1519). A percentage of 26.4% of works includes at least one statistical descriptive indicator, while 31.9% of works containing statistics, have no descriptive indicators. The graphics used are mostly bar and pie. Regarding inferential statistics, 47.2% of work contains at least one statistical test, and 36.1% have none statistical test. The most frequent utilized tests are Pearson r and t tests. It was recorded no single case of reporting effect sizes and confidence limits. Conclusions: The results allow us to appreciate that the papers presented at scientific events, most of them by young psychologists, contain a relative insufficiently matured statistical analysis, and often insufficient connected to the problem studied. We must appreciate, however, as positive the interest in empirical research and statistical analysis of results.
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
Psihologia Resurselor Umane
Psihologia Resurselor Umane Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊介绍: The Psihologia Resurselor Umane Journal is the official journal of the Association of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (APIO). PRU is devoted to publishing original investigations that contribute to an understanding of situational and individual challenges within an organizational context and that bring forth new knowledge in the field. The journal publishes primarily empirical articles and also welcomes methodological and theoretical articles on a broad range of topics covered by Organizational, Industrial, Work, Personnel and Occupational Health Psychology. Audience includes scholars, educators, managers, HR professionals, organizational consultants, practitioners in organizational and employee development.
期刊最新文献
Investigating the Link between Flow, Perceived Feedback and Performance in Art Dimension- or Task-based Assessment Centers? A direct comparison study of two measurement approaches Decision-making style, personality, and decision outcomes of military personnel, a network analysis approach. Self-Leadership and Task, Contextual, and Creative Performance: The Mediating Role of Job Crafting Measuring Work Motivation in Practice-Based Studies
×
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