Consistency of Effects Is Important in Replication: Rejoinder to Mathur and VanderWeele (2019)

Larry V. Hedges; Jacob M. Schauer

doi:10.1037/met0000237

Consistency of Effects Is Important in Replication: Rejoinder to Mathur and VanderWeele (2019)

Larry V. Hedges, Jacob M. Schauer^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

In this rejoinder, we discuss Mathur and VanderWeele’s response to our article, “Statistical Analyses for Studying Replication: Meta-Analytic Perspectives,” which appears in this current issue. We attempt to clarify a point of confusion regarding the inclusion of an original study in an analysis of replication, and the potential impact of publication bias. We then discuss the methods used by Mathur and VanderWeele to conduct an alternative analysis of the Gambler’s Fallacy example from our article. We highlight that there are some potential statistical and conceptual differences to their approach compared to what we propose in our article.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	576-577
Number of pages	2
Journal	Psychological methods
Volume	24
Issue number	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000237
State	Published - 2019

Funding

Keywords

experimental design
meta-analysis
replication

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Psychology (miscellaneous)

Access to Document

10.1037/met0000237

Cite this

@article{142983ecc1dd4a5b970ad06f39c8f0ea,

title = "Consistency of Effects Is Important in Replication: Rejoinder to Mathur and VanderWeele (2019)",

abstract = "In this rejoinder, we discuss Mathur and VanderWeele{\textquoteright}s response to our article, “Statistical Analyses for Studying Replication: Meta-Analytic Perspectives,” which appears in this current issue. We attempt to clarify a point of confusion regarding the inclusion of an original study in an analysis of replication, and the potential impact of publication bias. We then discuss the methods used by Mathur and VanderWeele to conduct an alternative analysis of the Gambler{\textquoteright}s Fallacy example from our article. We highlight that there are some potential statistical and conceptual differences to their approach compared to what we propose in our article.",

keywords = "experimental design, meta-analysis, replication",

author = "Hedges, {Larry V.} and Schauer, {Jacob M.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2019 American Psychological Association",

year = "2019",

doi = "10.1037/met0000237",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "24",

pages = "576--577",

journal = "Psychological methods",

issn = "1082-989X",

publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Consistency of Effects Is Important in Replication

T2 - Rejoinder to Mathur and VanderWeele (2019)

AU - Hedges, Larry V.

AU - Schauer, Jacob M.

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - In this rejoinder, we discuss Mathur and VanderWeele’s response to our article, “Statistical Analyses for Studying Replication: Meta-Analytic Perspectives,” which appears in this current issue. We attempt to clarify a point of confusion regarding the inclusion of an original study in an analysis of replication, and the potential impact of publication bias. We then discuss the methods used by Mathur and VanderWeele to conduct an alternative analysis of the Gambler’s Fallacy example from our article. We highlight that there are some potential statistical and conceptual differences to their approach compared to what we propose in our article.

AB - In this rejoinder, we discuss Mathur and VanderWeele’s response to our article, “Statistical Analyses for Studying Replication: Meta-Analytic Perspectives,” which appears in this current issue. We attempt to clarify a point of confusion regarding the inclusion of an original study in an analysis of replication, and the potential impact of publication bias. We then discuss the methods used by Mathur and VanderWeele to conduct an alternative analysis of the Gambler’s Fallacy example from our article. We highlight that there are some potential statistical and conceptual differences to their approach compared to what we propose in our article.

KW - experimental design

KW - meta-analysis

KW - replication

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072915622&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85072915622&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/met0000237

DO - 10.1037/met0000237

M3 - Article

C2 - 31580142

AN - SCOPUS:85072915622

SN - 1082-989X

VL - 24

SP - 576

EP - 577

JO - Psychological methods

JF - Psychological methods

IS - 5

ER -

Consistency of Effects Is Important in Replication: Rejoinder to Mathur and VanderWeele (2019)

Abstract

Funding

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this