Hi I would say the problem is less with individual studies not having enough power than with (a) the difficulty of getting replications published, and (b) premature conclusion drawing by researchers (often aided and abetted by their institution's communication / advertising departments) who cannot wait for sufficient replications to be confident about the effects.
It seems pretty clear that insisting on increases in power will decrease the number of published studies, including replications. Not everyone will have the resources to have the perhaps very large sample size necessary to carry out and publish "ideal" studies. But what we need is more replication rather than less. I remember with fondness the old J of Experimental Psychology and J of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, which would contain numerous studies, some of which would be only a few pages long as the important info was Methods and Results. And one still finds these kinds of journals in the natural sciences, perhaps accounting for the much better acceptance rates (i.e., lower rejection rates) than psychology journals. Science is a collective effort, but psychology and affiliated disciplines appear to have turned it too much towards an emphasis on individual achievement (where individual includes research teams). Take care Jim James M. Clark Professor & Chair of Psychology [email protected] Room 4L41A 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax Dept of Psychology, U of Winnipeg 515 Portage Ave, Winnipeg, MB R3B 0R4 CANADA >>> Michael Palij <[email protected]> 10-Apr-13 7:20 AM >>> A paper published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience reports a meta-analysis of neuroscience research studies and, in keeping with old problems with experimental designs used by people who perhaps don't know what they're doing (e.g., failing to appreciate the role of statistical power), report that they find (a) low levels of statistical power (around .20), (b) exaggerated effect sizes, and (c) lack or reproducibility. But don't take my word for it, here is a link to research article: http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nrn3475.html NOTE: you'll need to use you institution's library to access the article. There are popular media articles that focus on this article which may be useful in classes such as critical thinking and maybe even neuroscience; see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/sifting-the-evidence/2013/apr/10/unreliable-neuroscience-power-matters Jack Cohen pointed out some of the problems back in his 1962 review as well as updated them in subsequent publications; see: http://classes.deonandan.com/hss4303/2010/cohen%201992%20sample%20size.pdf Of course, this is problem of researcher education, the politics of funding research and publishing, and perhaps sociological factors, such trying to appear more "scientific" -- focusing on brain is after all more "scientific" than focusing on just behavior or the mind. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a891720c9&n=T&l=tips&o=24913 or send a blank email to leave-24913-13251.645f86b5cec4da0a56ffea7a89172...@fsulist.frostburg.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=24923 or send a blank email to leave-24923-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
<<attachment: Jim_Clark.vcf>>
