Reliability and replicability in infant research: A commentary on Byers‐Heinlein et al. (2021).
Byers‐Heinlein et al. (2021) argue that a greater focus on reliability in infant research is much needed and desirable for the field. Moreover, they offer a number of possible solutions to increase reliability in infant research. Here, I do not discuss the suitability of the offered solutions. Inste...
| Publicado en: | Infant & Child Development Vol. 31; no. 5; pp. 1 - 5 |
|---|---|
| Formato: | commentary Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Sep2022
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=159614219&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 159614219 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 15227227 BW5 jtl: Infant & Child Development issn: 15227227 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Sep2022 vid: 31 iid: 5 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell place: Malden, Massachusetts artinfo: ui: 159614219 156754954 159614219 159614219 10.1002/icd.2330 159614219 ppf: 1 ppct: 4 formats: tig: atl: Reliability and replicability in infant research: A commentary on Byers‐Heinlein et al. (2021). aug: sug: subj: Reliability Research, Medical Reproducibility of Results Infant Development Measurement Error Research Methodology Sampling Error Infant Infant: 1-23 months ab: Byers‐Heinlein et al. (2021) argue that a greater focus on reliability in infant research is much needed and desirable for the field. Moreover, they offer a number of possible solutions to increase reliability in infant research. Here, I do not discuss the suitability of the offered solutions. Instead, I further develop the authors' argument by considering the worryingly downstream consequences of low reliability for the very possibility of drawing meaningful inferences from the results of replication studies. I argue that the sources of error related to sampling and measurement greatly affect the estimates, resulting in confidence intervals being often very wide. Consequently, interpreting the differences between small‐scale original and replication studies becomes a meaningless task, which, I maintain, could be replaced by a meta‐analytic mindset and the habit of fully incorporating uncertainty in the reasoning about research findings. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: commentary Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|