.png){kind=icon}
返回
Heterogeneity in effect size estimates
.png){kind=icon}
OA
AI
DOI：10.1073/pnas.2403490121.png)
.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
分享.png){kind=icon}
收藏
摘要
En 中文
A typical empirical study involves choosing a sample, a research design, and an analysis path. Variation in such choices across studies leads to heterogeneity in results that introduce an additional layer of uncertainty, limiting the generalizability of published scientific findings. We provide a framework for studying heterogeneity in the social sciences and divide heterogeneity into population, design, and analytical heterogeneity. Our framework suggests that after accounting for heterogeneity, the probability that the tested hypothesis is true for the average population, design, and analysis path can be much lower than implied by nominal error rates of statistically significant individual studies. We estimate each type's heterogeneity from 70 multilab replication studies, 11 prospective meta- analyses of studies employing different experimental designs, and 5 multianalyst studies. In our data, population heterogeneity tends to be relatively small, whereas design and analytical heterogeneity are large. Our results should, however, be interpreted cautiously due to the limited number of studies and the large uncertainty in the heterogeneity estimates. We discuss several ways to parse and account for heterogeneity in the context of different methodologies.
Keyword:
heterogeneity
generalizability
|metascience
AI总结
对已上传原文的论文进行重点信息的提取，主要内容包括：简要概述、研究摘要、背景介绍、关键亮点、图文解析、展望与总结。
期刊
P
IF:
9.1
论文数:
10.8W
被引数:
73.5W
机构
引用论文
.png){kind=icon}
分享收藏Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings许多实验2: 调查样本和设置之间的可复制性差异OAAI
OAAI分享收藏Many Analysts, One Data Set: Making Transparent How Variations in Analytic Choices Affect Results许多分析师，一个数据集: 透明分析选择的变化如何影响结果OAAI
OAAI分享收藏
分享收藏
查看更多内容