Dear Tipsters, Although not a solution necessarily, perhaps more attention should be given to psychometrics and psychological testing in undergraduate and graduate programmes. Surveys in the U.S. and Canada show that statistics and research methods are almost universally required, whereas testing is not. One of the things I note when reviewing manuscripts is that the materials section often lacks information on psychometric properties of measures of the dependent variable.
Perhaps more education would move us in the right direction. Sincerely, Stuart ______________________________ "Recti Cultus Pectora Roborant" Stuart J. McKelvie, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Bishop's University, 2600 rue College, Sherbrooke (Borough of Lennoxville), QC J1M 1Z7, Canada. [email protected] (819)822-9600X2402 "Floreat Labore" ______________________________ -----Original Message----- From: Mike Wiliams [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 1:39 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re:[tips] NY Times Article on Reproducibility Psychologists have been using poor research methods for so long that we think our current methods are valid. We have been wise enough to detect these problems and often comment on them, and even study them, but we don't change them because there is essentially no correction. It's like the old quote about the weather: everybody talks about it but no one does anything about it. A good example I use in stats classes is reliability. Psychologists have actually made contributions to the study of measurement because our measures are so unreliable. I wonder how many studies will not replicate or have stable effect sizes if the dependent measures only have reliabilities of .8? If the dependent measures can't be improved, we still forge on using them as if they were perfectly valid and reliable. Of course, one consequence of this is a poor rate of replication. Mike Williams Drexel University On 9/3/15 1:00 AM, Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) digest wrote: > Subject: RE: NY Times Article on Reproducibility > From: "Mike Palij"<[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:54:34 -0400 > X-Message-Number: 1 > > On Tue, 01 Sep 2015 08:02:05 -0700, Jim Clark wrote: >> >Hi >> > >> >Piece in NY Times by psychologist defending the discipline. >> >http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/opinion/psychology-is-not-in-crisi >> >s.html?emc=edit_th_20150901&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=26933398&_r=0 >> > >> >Judging by comments, readers aren't buying the argument. > Maybe Scott Lilienfeld should write an Op-Ed piece because of his > background on reviewing psychology as a science vs being a > pseudoscience. He hasn't commented on the reproducibility project but > one imagines that he may have some useful insights as well as > explanations that go beyond "this is just an example of the > self-correcting nature of science". > > -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=13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb72e3&n=T&l=tips&o=46630 or send a blank email to leave-46630-13510.2cc18398df2e6692fffc29a610cb7...@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=46634 or send a blank email to leave-46634-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
