42
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    4
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Testing for Questionable Research Practices in a Meta-Analysis: An Example from Experimental Parapsychology

      research-article
      1 , 2 , * , 3 , 4
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We describe a method of quantifying the effect of Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) on the results of meta-analyses. As an example we simulated a meta-analysis of a controversial telepathy protocol to assess the extent to which these experimental results could be explained by QRPs. Our simulations used the same numbers of studies and trials as the original meta-analysis and the frequencies with which various QRPs were applied in the simulated experiments were based on surveys of experimental psychologists. Results of both the meta-analysis and simulations were characterized by 4 metrics, two describing the trial and mean experiment hit rates (HR) of around 31%, where 25% is expected by chance, one the correlation between sample-size and hit-rate, and one the complete P-value distribution of the database. A genetic algorithm optimized the parameters describing the QRPs, and the fitness of the simulated meta-analysis was defined as the sum of the squares of Z-scores for the 4 metrics. Assuming no anomalous effect a good fit to the empirical meta-analysis was found only by using QRPs with unrealistic parameter-values. Restricting the parameter space to ranges observed in studies of QRP occurrence, under the untested assumption that parapsychologists use comparable QRPs, the fit to the published Ganzfeld meta-analysis with no anomalous effect was poor. We allowed for a real anomalous effect, be it unidentified QRPs or a paranormal effect, where the HR ranged from 25% (chance) to 31%. With an anomalous HR of 27% the fitness became F = 1.8 ( p = 0.47 where F = 0 is a perfect fit). We conclude that the very significant probability cited by the Ganzfeld meta-analysis is likely inflated by QRPs, though results are still significant ( p = 0.003) with QRPs. Our study demonstrates that quantitative simulations of QRPs can assess their impact. Since meta-analyses in general might be polluted by QRPs, this method has wide applicability outside the domain of experimental parapsychology.

          Related collections

          Most cited references5

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials.

          Meta-analyses are now widely used to provide evidence to support clinical strategies. However, large randomized, controlled trials are considered the gold standard in evaluating the efficacy of clinical interventions. We compared the results of large randomized, controlled trials (involving 1000 patients or more) that were published in four journals (the New England Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, the Annals of Internal Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association) with the results of meta-analyses published earlier on the same topics. Regarding the principal and secondary outcomes, we judged whether the findings of the randomized trials agreed with those of the corresponding meta-analyses, and we determined whether the study results were positive (indicating that treatment improved the outcome) or negative (indicating that the outcome with treatment was the same or worse than without it) at the conventional level of statistical significance (P<0.05). We identified 12 large randomized, controlled trials and 19 meta-analyses addressing the same questions. For a total of 40 primary and secondary outcomes, agreement between the meta-analyses and the large clinical trials was only fair (kappa= 0.35; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.06 to 0.64). The positive predictive value of the meta-analyses was 68 percent, and the negative predictive value 67 percent. However, the difference in point estimates between the randomized trials and the meta-analyses was statistically significant for only 5 of the 40 comparisons (12 percent). Furthermore, in each case of disagreement a statistically significant effect of treatment was found by one method, whereas no statistically significant effect was found by the other. The outcomes of the 12 large randomized, controlled trials that we studied were not predicted accurately 35 percent of the time by the meta-analyses published previously on the same topics.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A Bayesian truth serum for subjective data.

            Subjective judgments, an essential information source for science and policy, are problematic because there are no public criteria for assessing judgmental truthfulness. I present a scoring method for eliciting truthful subjective data in situations where objective truth is unknowable. The method assigns high scores not to the most common answers but to the answers that are more common than collectively predicted, with predictions drawn from the same population. This simple adjustment in the scoring criterion removes all bias in favor of consensus: Truthful answers maximize expected score even for respondents who believe that their answer represents a minority view.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis of free-response studies, 1992-2008: assessing the noise reduction model in parapsychology.

              We report the results of meta-analyses on 3 types of free-response study: (a) ganzfeld (a technique that enhances a communication anomaly referred to as "psi"); (b) nonganzfeld noise reduction using alleged psi-enhancing techniques such as dream psi, meditation, relaxation, or hypnosis; and (c) standard free response (nonganzfeld, no noise reduction). For the period 1997-2008, a homogeneous data set of 29 ganzfeld studies yielded a mean effect size of 0.142 (Stouffer Z = 5.48, p = 2.13 x 10(-8)). A homogeneous nonganzfeld noise reduction data set of 16 studies yielded a mean effect size of 0.110 (Stouffer Z = 3.35, p = 2.08 x 10(-4)), and a homogeneous data set of 14 standard free-response studies produced a weak negative mean effect size of -0.029 (Stouffer Z = -2.29, p = .989). The mean effect size value of the ganzfeld database was significantly higher than the mean effect size of the standard free-response database but was not higher than the effect size of the nonganzfeld noise reduction database [corrected].We also found that selected participants (believers in the paranormal, meditators, etc.) had a performance advantage over unselected participants, but only if they were in the ganzfeld condition.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                4 May 2016
                2016
                : 11
                : 5
                : e0153049
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Experimental Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Brain & Cognition, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [3 ]LFR, Palo Alto, California, United States of America
                [4 ]Brain & Cognition, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                University of Hertfordshire, UNITED KINGDOM
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Analyzed the data: DJB JS. Wrote the paper: DJB JS. Conceived the experiment (simulation): DJB. Discussed this extensively with DJB: AB. Wrote the RB software and ran the experiment: DJB. Wrote the R software and ran the experiment and was responsible for introducing the fitting by GA: JS. Analysis tools: DJB JS. Contributes the section on the TES experiments from which a publication probability function was derived: AB.

                Article
                PONE-D-15-40794
                10.1371/journal.pone.0153049
                4856278
                27144889
                4733bf3e-0b27-4cc1-9510-147fa132ab2c
                © 2016 Bierman et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 15 September 2015
                : 20 March 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 2, Pages: 18
                Funding
                The authors have no support or funding to report.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Experimental Psychology
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Experimental Psychology
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Sensory Perception
                Parapsychology
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Sensory Perception
                Parapsychology
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Sensory Perception
                Parapsychology
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Statistical Methods
                Meta-Analysis
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics (Mathematics)
                Statistical Methods
                Meta-Analysis
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Applied Mathematics
                Algorithms
                Genetic Algorithms
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Simulation and Modeling
                Algorithms
                Genetic Algorithms
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Simulation and Modeling
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Psychologists
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Behavior
                Deception
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article