The ultimate goal of research is to produce dependable knowledge or to provide the evidence that may guide practical decisions. Statistical conclusion validity (SCV) holds when the conclusions of a research study are founded on an adequate analysis of the data, generally meaning that adequate statistical methods are used whose small-sample behavior is accurate, besides being logically capable of providing an answer to the research question. Compared to the three other traditional aspects of research validity (external validity, internal validity, and construct validity), interest in SCV has recently grown on evidence that inadequate data analyses are sometimes carried out which yield conclusions that a proper analysis of the data would not have supported. This paper discusses evidence of three common threats to SCV that arise from widespread recommendations or practices in data analysis, namely, the use of repeated testing and optional stopping without control of Type-I error rates, the recommendation to check the assumptions of statistical tests, and the use of regression whenever a bivariate relation or the equivalence between two variables is studied. For each of these threats, examples are presented and alternative practices that safeguard SCV are discussed. Educational and editorial changes that may improve the SCV of published research are also discussed.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 January 2020.
All research outputs
#6,752,694
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#9,677
of 29,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,696
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#168
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
