Jelte Wicherts
@JelteWicherts
Followers
4K
Following
353
Media
299
Statuses
1K
Professor in methodology. Tweets about meta-research, intelligence, open science, methods, and bias & error in (psychological) science. Also proud father of 4
The Netherlands
Joined November 2010
Nearly three-quarters of tested psychological scales failed the test of measurement invariance needed for meaningful group comparisons https://t.co/nwGt08o1xP
5
127
400
What it takes to tutor—A preregistered direct replication of the scaffolding experimental study by D. Wood et al. (1978).
psycnet.apa.org
Scaffolding, which can be summarized as the right instructional support at the right moment in time, is often mentioned as an important feature of effective teaching. The present study is a preregi...
0
0
5
Meta-analyzing the multiverse: A peek under the hood of selective reporting.
0
0
2
The stereotype threat effect, once one of social psychology's pet theories, gets hammered in another large-scale replication failure. Stereotype threat refers to the fear of being judged based on negative stereotypes about the performance of a certain group one identifies
13
73
441
Implementing Statcheck During Peer Review Is Related to a Steep Decline in Statistical-Reporting Inconsistencies - Michèle B. Nuijten, Jelte M. Wicherts, 2024
journals.sagepub.com
We investigated whether statistical-reporting inconsistencies could be avoided if journals implement the tool statcheck in the peer-review process. In a preregi...
2
9
21
🚨 New #metascience paper with @jeltewicherts, now accepted in AMPPS! 🚨 Using #statcheck in peer review is linked to decline in statistical reporting inconsistencies. 1/n 🧵
2
23
31
Vacancy: We are looking for two fully paid PhD students in methodology and statistics as part of my NWO-funded VICI project Examining Variation in Causal Effects in Psychology! https://t.co/pu9jLwqk4l
0
13
24
Vacancy: We are looking for two fully paid PhD students in methodology and statistics as part of my NWO-funded VICI project Examining Variation in Causal Effects in Psychology! https://t.co/pu9jLwqk4l
0
13
24
Preregistration in practice: A comparison of preregistered and non-preregistered studies in psychology @DenOlmo
https://t.co/z2Mir49Nzq
2
49
154
In more than half of 459 preregistered studies, hypotheses were added, omitted, or changed in the published papers. @DenOlmo
https://t.co/do5YGnvHXC
0
71
179
Selective outcome reporting can be corrected in meta-analyses (subject to assumptions) https://t.co/akrVkmSrrK
0
13
38
“Implementing statcheck during peer review is related to a steep decline in statistical reporting errors.” https://t.co/fUUVyxgPui
0
3
17
“It is disheartening to see that even among…excellent early career researchers, misconduct and academic cheating appear common,” @JelteWicherts. Read the full story by @DalmeetS.
physics.aps.org
In a survey of 244 engineering graduate students, one fifth admit to cheating or committing some form of research malpractice during their studies.
0
4
3
19% of 755 phase 3 cancer trials had changes to the primary end points in the paper compared to the registration. 70% of those were not disclosed in the paper. Changes were associated with likelihood of a positive outcome (OR=1.86). https://t.co/5Jh9qWyGmb
jamanetwork.com
This cross-sectional study assesses the frequency of reporting of primary end point changes among active oncology phase 3 randomized clinical trials.
5
66
168
Preregistration in practice: A comparison of preregistered and non-preregistered studies in psychology The link to the preprint on @metaarxiv didn't work so I now uploaded it on OSF at https://t.co/fuwsFMedss
@lakens @EvoMellor @MamsMandrill @JelteWicherts
In the 2nd paper, we surprisingly found that preregistered studies did NOT have lower proportions of statistically significant results NOR lower effect sizes. However, this may have been due to our selection of the control group.
2
18
60
Vacancy: two fully paid 4-year PhD positions in meta-research as part of the NWO-funded VICI project Examining Variation in Causal Effects in Psychology https://t.co/pXePbhdR52
1
11
11
Did papers about COVID-19 (presumably written under high pressure) contain more statistical inconsistencies than non-COVID-19 papers? Our natural experiment assessing more than 533 preprint pairs did not find evidence for this. https://t.co/bWJCyRjufP
1
5
31