IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0307999.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accumulating evidence across studies: Consistent methods protect against false findings produced by p-hacking

Author

Listed:
  • Duane T Wegener
  • Jolynn Pek
  • Leandre R Fabrigar

Abstract

Much empirical science involves evaluating alternative explanations for the obtained data. For example, given certain assumptions underlying a statistical test, a “significant” result generally refers to implausibility of a null (zero) effect in the population producing the obtained study data. However, methodological work on various versions of p-hacking (i.e., using different analysis strategies until a “significant” result is produced) questions whether significant p-values might often reflect false findings. Indeed, initial simulations of single studies showed that the potential for finding “significant” but false findings might be much higher than the nominal .05 value when various analysis flexibilities are undertaken. In many settings, however, research articles report multiple studies using consistent methods across the studies, where those consistent methods would constrain the flexibilities used to produce high false-finding rates for simulations of single studies. Thus, we conducted simulations of study sets. These simulations show that consistent methods across studies (i.e., consistent in terms of which measures are analyzed, which conditions are included, and whether and how covariates are included) dramatically reduce the potential for flexible research practices (p-hacking) to produce consistent sets of significant results across studies. For p-hacking to produce even modest probabilities of a consistent set of studies would require (a) a large amount of selectivity in study reporting and (b) severe (and quite intentional) versions of p-hacking. With no more than modest selective reporting and with consistent methods across studies, p-hacking does not provide a plausible explanation for consistent empirical results across studies, especially as the size of the reported study set increases. In addition, the simulations show that p-hacking can produce high rates of false findings for single studies with very large samples. In contrast, a series of methodologically-consistent studies (even with much smaller samples) is much less vulnerable to the forms of p-hacking examined in the simulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Duane T Wegener & Jolynn Pek & Leandre R Fabrigar, 2024. "Accumulating evidence across studies: Consistent methods protect against false findings produced by p-hacking," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(8), pages 1-18, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0307999
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307999
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0307999
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0307999&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0307999?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pamela Reinagel, 2023. "Is N-Hacking Ever OK? The consequences of collecting more data in pursuit of statistical significance," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(11), pages 1-15, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0307999. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.