Conceptualizing and evaluating the replication of research results

155 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Construct Validation in Social and Personality Research (2017, methodology): “We referred readers to Graham (2006), Sijtsma, (2009), and Yang and Green (2011) for details on how to test these assumptions in classical test theory and structural equation modeling framework.”
Large-Scale Replication Projects in Contemporary Psychological Research (2017, background): “Nonetheless, replication is complicated in psychological research because studies of a given psychological phenomenon can never be direct or exact replications of one another (Rosenthal 1991; Tsang and Kwan 1999; Brandt et al. 2014; Stroebe and Strack 2014; Fabrigar and Wegener 2016).”
Correcting for Bias in Psychology: A Comparison of Meta-Analytic Methods (2019, background): “Thus, it is hard to interpret the results of a meta-analysis in psychology, just as it is difficult to interpret the results of any single replication study (Braver, Thoemmes, & Rosenthal, 2014; D. J. Stanley & Spence, 2014; Fabrigar & Wegener, 2016).”
Psychology, Science, and Knowledge Construction: Broadening Perspectives from the Replication Crisis (2018, background): “When a conceptually original ﬁnding is suspect or if it does not extend to other measures, procedures, or contexts (Fabrigar & Wegener 2016).”