ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Intensive longitudinal studies, in which participants complete questionnaires multiple times a day over an extended period, are increasingly popular in the social sciences in general and quality-of-life research in particular. The intensive longitudinal methods allow for studying the dynamics of constructs (e.g., how much patient-reported outcomes vary across time). These methods promise higher ecological validity and lower recall bias than traditional methods that question participants only once, since the high frequency means that participants complete questionnaires in their everyday lives and do not have to retrospectively report about a large time interval. However, to ensure the validity of the results obtained from analyzing the intensive longitudinal data (ILD), greater awareness and understanding of appropriate measurement practices are needed. METHOD: We surveyed 42 researchers experienced with ILD regarding their measurement practices and reasons for suboptimal practices. RESULTS: Results showed that researchers typically do not use measures validated specifically for ILD. Participants assessing the psychometric properties and invariance of measures in their current studies was even less common, as was accounting for these properties when analyzing dynamics. This was mainly because participants did not have the necessary knowledge to conduct these assessments or were unaware of their importance for drawing valid inferences. Open science practices, in contrast, appear reasonably well ingrained in ILD studies. CONCLUSION: Measurement practices in ILD still need improvement in some key areas; we provide recommendations in order to create a solid foundation for measuring and analyzing psychological constructs.
ABSTRACT
Self-report scales are widely used in psychology to compare means in latent constructs across groups, experimental conditions, or time points. However, for these comparisons to be meaningful and unbiased, the scales must demonstrate measurement invariance (MI) across compared time points or (experimental) groups. MI testing determines whether the latent constructs are measured equivalently across groups or time, which is essential for meaningful comparisons. We conducted a systematic review of 426 psychology articles with openly available data, to (a) examine common practices in conducting and reporting of MI testing, (b) assess whether we could reproduce the reported MI results, and (c) conduct MI tests for the comparisons that enabled sufficiently powerful MI testing. We identified 96 articles that contained a total of 929 comparisons. Results showed that only 4% of the 929 comparisons underwent MI testing, and the tests were generally poorly reported. None of the reported MI tests were reproducible, and only 26% of the 174 newly performed MI tests reached sufficient (scalar) invariance, with MI failing completely in 58% of tests. Exploratory analyses suggested that in nearly half of the comparisons where configural invariance was rejected, the number of factors differed between groups. These results indicate that MI tests are rarely conducted and poorly reported in psychological studies. We observed frequent violations of MI, suggesting that reported differences between (experimental) groups may not be solely attributed to group differences in the latent constructs. We offer recommendations aimed at improving reporting and computational reproducibility practices in psychology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
ABSTRACT
To determine the reproducibility of psychological meta-analyses, we investigated whether we could reproduce 500 primary study effect sizes drawn from 33 published meta-analyses based on the information given in the meta-analyses, and whether recomputations of primary study effect sizes altered the overall results of the meta-analysis. Results showed that almost half (k = 224) of all sampled primary effect sizes could not be reproduced based on the reported information in the meta-analysis, mostly because of incomplete or missing information on how effect sizes from primary studies were selected and computed. Overall, this led to small discrepancies in the computation of mean effect sizes, confidence intervals and heterogeneity estimates in 13 out of 33 meta-analyses. We provide recommendations to improve transparency in the reporting of the entire meta-analytic process, including the use of preregistration, data and workflow sharing, and explicit coding practices.
Subject(s)
Psychology/methods , Confidence Intervals , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
In determining the need to directly replicate, it is crucial to first verify the original results through independent reanalysis of the data. Original results that appear erroneous and that cannot be reproduced by reanalysis offer little evidence to begin with, thereby diminishing the need to replicate. Sharing data and scripts is essential to ensure reproducibility.
