From the "Replicability Crisis" to Open Science Practices

According to the 'Reproducibility Project' mentioned in the text, out of 100 previously published psychological experiments, how many of the replications found statistically significant effects?

What was the average effect size of the replications in the 'Reproducibility Project' compared to the original studies?

How many psychologists were involved in coordinating their efforts for the 'Reproducibility Project'?

Which questionable research practice is defined as the selective deletion of outliers to influence statistical relationships?

What is the term for mining data without an a priori hypothesis and then claiming a significant result was predicted from the start?

What is the practice colloquially known as 'p-hacking'?

Which of the following is NOT listed as a way to enhance scientific rigor and address the replicability crisis?

The 'Replication Index' is described as a statistical 'doping test' developed by Ulrich Schimmack in 2014 for what purpose?

What is the primary goal of open science practices as described in the chapter?

Which journal, identified as the flagship journal of the Association for Psychological Science, now issues digital badges to researchers for open science practices?

What does a 'Preregistered' digital badge from the Center for Open Science indicate?

The 'Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines' have been formally adopted by how many journals and organizations?

Which of the following is an example of the questionable practice of 'cherry-picking' results?

According to the text, a failure to replicate a result by itself does not necessarily discredit the original study. Which of the following is NOT listed as a potential explanation for the different results?

The text suggests that low replicability in psychology may be evidence of systematic problems, including a publication bias that favors what kind of findings?

What does the open science digital badge 'Open Materials' signify?

The case of Diederik Stapel, mentioned at the start of Chapter 3, is used as an example of which questionable practice?

What is one of the key purposes of publishing both null and significant findings?

The phrase 'replicability crisis' refers to what phenomenon in psychology?

Which organization is mentioned as having spearheaded initiatives like the 'Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines'?

The 'Many Labs Replication Project' is mentioned as an illustration of a failed replication of a finding by which researcher(s)?

What is meant by the 'file drawer problem' in the context of scientific rigor?

Besides the flagship journal of the Association for Psychological Science, what other entities now issue digital badges for open science practices?

The text states that in addition to highlighting what not to do, the 'crisis' has also highlighted the importance of what?

Which federal funding agencies in the US and Canada are mentioned as having imposed requirements concerning the publication of publicly-funded research?

What is the second questionable research practice listed in the chapter, also known as cherry-picking?

What does the text say is the risk of a researcher performing inferential statistical calculations to see if a result was significant before deciding to recruit additional participants?

Which of the listed solutions to the replicability crisis directly addresses the 'file drawer problem'?

The text suggests that one promising response to the replicability crisis is the emergence of open science practices. What future for science and psychology does the author predict?

According to the summary of the Results of the Reproducibility Project (Figure 13.5), how many of the 100 psychology findings were considered non-replications?

The text identifies the 'selective deletion of outliers' as a questionable research practice because it usually has what effect?

Why does the text argue that data fabrication is worse than a 'research practice' like p-hacking?

According to the text, what is a key benefit of designing studies with sufficient statistical power?

What is the fourth point listed as a way to enhance scientific rigor?

The finding that 'washing one's hands leads people to view moral transgressions as less wrong' was the subject of which replication effort?

Based on the information in the chapter, how is the selective reporting of results (cherry-picking) different from HARKing?

Which of the following practices is NOT a type of open science practice encouraged with a digital badge by journals like Psychological Science?

The text suggests that others have interpreted the failure to replicate research results as evidence of what?

What does the text identify as a consequence of the widespread use of questionable research practices by psychological researchers?

In the Reproducibility Project, what percentage of the original studies had found statistically significant effects?

What is the third questionable research practice listed in the chapter, also known as HARKing?

The text argues that the 'duller (but incredibly vital) process' is often unfavored by publication bias. What is this process?

Why is it important to describe one's research design in sufficient detail, according to the chapter's list of ways to enhance scientific rigor?

What does the text imply is the relationship between p-hacking and the number of participants in a study?

The author of the book cites Brandt et al. (2014) in support of which recommendation for enhancing scientific rigor?

What is the key feature of HARKing (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known) that makes it a questionable practice?

In the summary of the Reproducibility Project (Figure 13.5), it is noted that some of the 61 non-replications had what characteristic?

The text suggests that the 'replicability crisis' has prompted federal funding agencies to impose requirements regarding what practice?

Which questionable research practice is most closely related to the 'file drawer problem'?

The movement towards open science practices, as described in the chapter, is presented as a response to what central issue?