Promoting Enhanced Transparency in Psychometric Studies.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18050/psiquemag.v11i2.2064Keywords:
Open Science Framework (OSF), HARKing, P-haking, StandardReport, Reproducibility, Preprint, Pre-reportsAbstract
We are in the presence of a great moment for the advancement of psychological science. Currently, we have a wide range of resources and sources to adhere to good research practices, which allow the development of an increasingly reliable, valid and reproducible discipline. Within responsible behavior in research, it is essential to promote adherence to transparency and open science practices. Although it is currently difficult to think that any researcher does not agree with these principles and practices, their implementation is not yet generalized or extended, neither in all disciplines and subdisciplines, nor equally in all countries. Here we are interested in focusing on measurement practices, in the field of psychometrics. We believe that transparent and open science practices are a viable and fundamental solution to counteract questionable practices in research and, especially, those related to questionable measurement practices. Focusing on these psychometric or measurement practices is essential, since the more general validity of our scientific findings depends on them. The ultimate goal of this research work is to offer a series of resources that facilitate the dissemination and adherence of these responsible behaviors in research, among institutions and researchers in Latin-American.
References
Abadal, E. (2021). Ciencia abierta: un modelo con piezas por encajar. Arbor, 197(799), a588. https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2021.799003
APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be? American Psychologist, 63(9), 839–851. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.839
Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191
Barber, T. X. (1976). Pitfalls in human research: Ten pivotal points. Pergamon Press.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412–1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000626
Epskamp, S. (2019). Reproducibility and Replicability in a Fast-Paced Methodological World. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847421
Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable Measurement Practices and How to Avoid Them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 456–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393
Flake, J. K., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct Validation in Social and Personality Research: Current Practice and Recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 370–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693063
Flores-Kanter, P. E., Dominguez-Lara, S., Trógolo, M. A., & Medrano, L. A. (2018). Best Practices in the Use of Bifactor Models: Conceptual Grounds, Fit Indices and Complementary Indicators. Revista Evaluar, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.35670/1667-4545.v18.n3.22221
Flores-Kanter, P. E., Toro, R., & Alvarado, J. M. (2021). Internal Structure of Beck Hopelessness Scale: An Analysis of Method Effects Using the CT-C(M–1) Model. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.1942021
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Strother, A. N. (2020). Psychological measurement and the replication crisis: Four sacred cows. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 61(4), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000236
Lindsay, D. S. (2020). Seven steps toward transparency and replicability in psychological science. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 61(4), 310–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000222
Lloret-Segura, S., Ferreres-Traver, A., Hernández-Baeza, A., & Tomás-Marco, I. (2014). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: Una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 1151–1169. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361
Mellor, D. T., Vazire, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (2018). Transparent science: A more credible, reproducible, and publishable way to do science [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/7wkdn
Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Ware, J. J., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(1), 0021. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0021
Nelson, L. D., Simmons, J., & Simonsohn, U. (2018). Psychology’s Renaissance. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 511–534. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011836
Nosek, B. A., Hardwicke, T. E., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K. S., Dreber, A., Fidler, F., Hilgard, J., Kline Struhl, M., Nuijten, M. B., Rohrer, J. M., Romero, F., Scheel, A. M., Scherer, L. D., Schönbrodt, F. D., & Vazire, S. (2022). Replicability, Robustness, and Reproducibility in Psychological Science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73(1), 719–748. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157
Royal Society. (2012). Science as an open enterprise. Royal Society. http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/science-public-enterprise/report/
Tackett, J. L., Brandes, C. M., & Reardon, K. W. (2019). Leveraging the Open Science Framework in clinical psychological assessment research. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1386–1394. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000583
Tackett, J. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., Johnson, S. L., Krueger, R. F., Miller, J. D., Oltmanns, T. F., & Shrout, P. E. (2017). It’s Time to Broaden the Replicability Conversation: Thoughts for and From Clinical Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 742–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617690042
Tijdink, J. K., Horbach, S. P. J. M., Nuijten, M. B., & O’Neill, G. (2021). Towards a Research Agenda for Promoting Responsible Research Practices. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 16(4), 450–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211018916
Viladrich, C., Angulo-Brunet, A., & Doval, E. (2017). Un viaje alrededor de alfa y omega para estimar la fiabilidad de consistencia interna. Anales de Psicología, 33(3), 755. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401
Published
Versions
- 2022-03-21 (3)
- 2022-03-21 (2)
- 2022-03-21 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 PsiqueMag
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
-
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
