Bias and Precision of Continuous Norms Obtained Using Quantile Regression.

Continuous norming is an increasingly popular approach to establish norms when the performance on a test is dependent on age. However, current continuous norming methods rely on a number of assumptions that are quite restrictive and may introduce bias. In this study, quantile regression was introduced as more flexible alternative. Bias and precision of quantile regression-based norming were investigated with (age-)group as covariate, varying sample sizes and score distributions, and compared with bias and precision of two other norming methods: traditional norming and mean regression-based norming. Simulations showed the norms obtained using quantile regression to be most precise in almost all conditions. Norms were nevertheless biased when the score distributions reflected a ceiling effect. Quantile regression-based norming can thus be considered a promising alternative to traditional norming and mean regression-based norming, but only if the shape of the score distribution can be expected to be close to normal.

Ensuring the quality and specificity of preregistrations.

Researchers face many, often seemingly arbitrary, choices in formulating hypotheses, designing protocols, collecting data, analyzing data, and reporting results. Opportunistic use of "researcher degrees of freedom" aimed at obtaining statistical significance increases the likelihood of obtaining and publishing false-positive results and overestimated effect sizes. Preregistration is a mechanism for reducing such degrees of freedom by specifying designs and analysis plans before observing the research outcomes. The effectiveness of preregistration may depend, in part, on whether the process facilitates sufficiently specific articulation of such plans. In this preregistered study, we compared 2 formats of preregistration available on the OSF: Standard Pre-Data Collection Registration and Prereg Challenge Registration (now called "OSF Preregistration," http://osf.io/prereg/). The Prereg Challenge format was a "structured" workflow with detailed instructions and an independent review to confirm completeness; the "Standard" format was "unstructured" with minimal direct guidance to give researchers flexibility for what to prespecify. Results of comparing random samples of 53 preregistrations from each format indicate that the "structured" format restricted the opportunistic use of researcher degrees of freedom better (Cliff's Delta = 0.49) than the "unstructured" format, but neither eliminated all researcher degrees of freedom. We also observed very low concordance among coders about the number of hypotheses (14%), indicating that they are often not clearly stated. We conclude that effective preregistration is challenging, and registration formats that provide effective guidance may improve the quality of research.

Effect Sizes, Power, and Biases in Intelligence Research: A Meta-Meta-Analysis.

In this meta-study, we analyzed 2442 effect sizes from 131 meta-analyses in intelligence research, published from 1984 to 2014, to estimate the average effect size, median power, and evidence for bias. We found that the average effect size in intelligence research was a Pearson's correlation of 0.26, and the median sample size was 60. Furthermore, across primary studies, we found a median power of 11.9% to detect a small effect, 54.5% to detect a medium effect, and 93.9% to detect a large effect. We documented differences in average effect size and median estimated power between different types of intelligence studies (correlational studies, studies of group differences, experiments, toxicology, and behavior genetics). On average, across all meta-analyses (but not in every meta-analysis), we found evidence for small-study effects, potentially indicating publication bias and overestimated effects. We found no differences in small-study effects between different study types. We also found no convincing evidence for the decline effect, US effect, or citation bias across meta-analyses. We concluded that intelligence research does show signs of low power and publication bias, but that these problems seem less severe than in many other scientific fields.

Obtaining insights from high-dimensional data: sparse principal covariates regression.

BACKGROUND: Data analysis methods are usually subdivided in two distinct classes: There are methods for prediction and there are methods for exploration. In practice, however, there often is a need to learn from the data in both ways. For example, when predicting the antibody titers a few weeks after vaccination on the basis of genomewide mRNA transcription rates, also mechanistic insights about the effect of vaccinations on the immune system are sought. Principal covariates regression (PCovR) is a method that combines both purposes. Yet, it misses insightful representations of the data as these include all the variables. RESULTS: Here, we propose a sparse extension of principal covariates regression such that the resulting solutions are based on an automatically selected subset of the variables. Our method is shown to outperform competing methods like sparse principal components regression and sparse partial least squares in a simulation study. Furthermore good performance of the method is illustrated on publicly available data including antibody titers and genomewide transcription rates for subjects vaccinated against the flu: the selected genes by sparse PCovR are higly enriched for immune related terms and the method predicts the titers for an independent test sample well. In comparison, no significantly enriched terms were found for the genes selected by sparse partial least squares and out-of-sample prediction was worse. CONCLUSIONS: Sparse principal covariates regression is a promising and competitive tool for obtaining insights from high-dimensional data. AVAILABILITY: The source code implementing our proposed method is available from GitHub, together with all scripts used to extract, pre-process, analyze, and post-process the data: https://github.com/katrijnvandeun/SPCovR .

The poor availability of syntaxes of structural equation modeling.

The syntax or codes used to fit Structural Equation Models (SEMs) convey valuable information on model specifications and the manner in which SEMs are estimated. We requested SEM syntaxes from a random sample of 229 articles (published in 1998-2013) that ran SEMs using LISREL, AMOS, or Mplus. After exchanging over 500 emails, we ended up obtaining a meagre 57 syntaxes used in these articles (24.9% of syntaxes we requested). Results considering the 129 (corresponding) authors who replied to our request showed that the odds of the syntax being lost increased by 21% per year passed since publication of the article, while the odds of actually obtaining a syntax dropped by 13% per year. So SEM syntaxes that are crucial for reproducibility and for correcting errors in the running and reporting of SEMs are often unavailable and get lost rapidly. The preferred solution is mandatory sharing of SEM syntaxes alongside articles or in data repositories.