scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
JournalISSN: 2169-3269

Archives of Scientific Psychology 

American Psychological Association
About: Archives of Scientific Psychology is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Cognition & Science education. It has an ISSN identifier of 2169-3269. It is also open access. Over the lifetime, 72 publications have been published receiving 980 citations.

Papers published on a yearly basis

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The SCRIBE 2016 is described, which is a set of 26 items that authors need to address when writing about SCED research for publication in a scientific journal, and a rationale and minimum reporting standards that stipulate what needs to be reported are provided for each item.
Abstract: There is substantial evidence that research studies reported in the scientific literature do not provide adequate information so that readers know exactly what was done and what was found. This problem has been addressed by the development of reporting guidelines which tell authors what should be reported and how it should be described. Many reporting guidelines are now available for different types of research designs. There is no such guideline for one type of research design commonly used in the behavioral sciences, the single-case experimental design (SCED). The present study addressed this gap. This report describes the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016, which is a set of 26 items that authors need to address when writing about SCED research for publication in a scientific journal. Each item is described, a rationale for its inclusion is provided, and examples of adequate reporting taken from the literature are quoted. It is recommended that the SCRIBE 2016 is used by authors preparing manuscripts describing SCED research for publication, as well as journal reviewers and editors who are evaluating such manuscripts. S C I E N T I F I C A B S T R A C T Single-case experimental design (SCED) studies in the behavioral sciences literature are not only common, but their proportion has also increased over past decades. Moreover, methodological complexity of SCEDs and sophistication in the techniques used to analyze SCED data has increased apace. Yet recent reviews of the behavioral sciences literature have shown that reporting of SCED research is highly variable and often incomplete. Explicit, precise and Archives of Scientific Psychology 2016, 4, 10–31 © 2016 The Author(s) DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000027 2169-3269 Archives of Scientific Psychology www.apa.org/pubs/journals/arc transparent reporting is crucial not only for critical evaluation of the study methodology and conclusions, but also to facilitate exact replication of investigations, and ascertain applicability and possible generality of results. Accordingly, we developed the SCRIBE 2016 (Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions) by a consensus process by experts in SCED methodology and research in the behavioral sciences, as well as experts in reporting guideline development. The SCRIBE 2016 Explanation and Elaboration article describes a set of 26 items to guide and structure the reporting of SCED research. A rationale and minimum reporting standards that stipulate what needs to be reported are provided for each item. In addition, examples of adequate and clear reporting drawn from the literature are included for each item. It is recommended that the SCRIBE 2016 Explanation and Elaboration article is used in conjunction with the complementary SCRIBE 2016 Statement (Tate et al., 2016) by authors preparing manuscripts for publication and journal reviewers and editors considering manuscripts for publication.

140 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A meta-analysis can provide the solution to these problems if the problems of publication bias and questionable research practices are successfully addressed as discussed by the authors, but the real problem is not a lack of replication; it is the distortion of our research literatures caused by publication bias.
Abstract: There have been frequent expressions of concern over the supposed failure of researchers to conduct replication studies. But the large number of meta-analyses in our literatures shows that replication studies are in fact being conducted in most areas of research. Many who argue for replication as the “gold standard” consider a non-significant replication attempt to be strong evidence against the initial study, an interpretation that ignores statistical power, typically low in behavioral research. Many researchers also hold that there is no need to replicate a non-significant finding, believing it will always replicate perfectly, an erroneous belief. These beliefs lead to a widely accepted sequential model of the research process that is deficient because it assumes that a single study can answer a research question, a belief that meta-analysis has shown to be false. Meta-analysis can provide the solution to these problems if the problems of publication bias and questionable research practices are successfully addressed. The real problem is not a lack of replication; it is the distortion of our research literatures caused by publication bias and questionable research practices.

91 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Empirical evidence is reviewed that fails to support the claim that autistic people are uniquely impaired, much less that all autisticPeople are universally impaired, on theory-of-mind tasks, and it is concluded that the claim That autistic people lack a theory of mind is empirically questionable and societally harmful.
Abstract: The claim that autistic people lack a theory of mind-that they fail to understand that other people have a mind or that they themselves have a mind-pervades psychology. This article (a) reviews empirical evidence that fails to support the claim that autistic people are uniquely impaired, much less that all autistic people are universally impaired, on theory-of-mind tasks; (b) highlights original findings that have failed to replicate; (c) documents multiple instances in which the various theory-of-mind tasks fail to relate to each other and fail to account for autistic traits, social interaction, and empathy; (c) summarizes a large body of data, collected by researchers working outside the theory-of-mind rubric, that fails to support assertions made by researchers working inside the theory-of-mind rubric; and (d) concludes that the claim that autistic people lack a theory of mind is empirically questionable and societally harmful.

81 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The ABbreviated Impulsiveness Scale (ABIS) as discussed by the authors is a shorter version of the BIS-11, which was developed to measure the three major types of impulsiveness: inattention, spontaneous action, and lack of planning.
Abstract: Impulsiveness is a personality trait that reflects an urge to act spontaneously, without thinking or planning ahead for the consequences of your actions. High impulsiveness is characteristic of a variety of problematic behaviors including attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity, excessive gambling, risk-taking, drug use, and alcoholism. Researchers studying attention and self-control often assess impulsiveness using personality questionnaires, notably the common Barratt Impulsiveness Scale version 11 (BIS-11; last revised in 1995). Advances in techniques for producing personality questionnaires over the last 20 years prompted us to revise and improve the BIS-11. We sought to make the revised scale shorter - so that it would be quicker to administer - and better matched to current behaviors. We analyzed responses from 1549 adults who took the BIS-11 questionnaire. Using a statistical technique called factor analysis, we eliminated 17 questions that did a poor job of measuring the three major types of impulsiveness identified by the scale: inattention, spontaneous action, and lack of planning. We constructed our ABbreviated Impulsiveness Scale (ABIS) using the remaining 13 questions. We showed that the ABIS performed well when administered to additional groups of 657 and 285 adults. Finally, we showed expected relationships between the ABIS and other personality measurements related to impulsiveness, and showed that the ABIS can help predict alcohol consumption. We present the ABIS as a useful and efficient tool for researchers interested in measuring impulsive personality.

66 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper analyzed citation impact, textbook citations, and major scientific awards to identify eminent psychologists of modern era (Post-World War II) and identified these individuals serves educational, administrative, and scholarly purposes.
Abstract: In the present paper, we analyzed citation impact, textbook citations, and major scientific awards to identify eminent psychologists of modern era (Post-World War II). Identifying these individuals serves educational, administrative, and scholarly purposes. Readers can more readily identify the psychologists who have made the most impact on the profession, as well as the type of contributions that receive recognition. In addition, young researchers can learn what is required if they want to achieve eminence. Finally, our analysis helps pinpoint imbalances in need of change, for example gender and ethnic disparities.

57 citations

Network Information
Related Journals (5)
American Psychologist
8.8K papers, 955.3K citations
82% related
Clinical Psychology Review
2.3K papers, 360.9K citations
78% related
Psychological Bulletin
6.1K papers, 1.5M citations
78% related
Psychological Science
5K papers, 655.3K citations
77% related
Developmental Psychology
7.1K papers, 698.3K citations
76% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Journal in previous years
YearPapers
20211
20204
201913
201824
20174
20163