IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/i4rdps/324.html

A comment on "Validation of the CRAVE-C scale in Chinese adults: a four-study examination of competing motivations for physical activity versus rest"

Author

Listed:
  • Brodeur, Abel
  • Jakobsson, Niklas
  • Moore, Kristjan
  • Barbarioli, Bruno

Abstract

Inspection of the publicly archived replication package for Cheng et al. (2024) reveals several data integrity concerns across three of the four reported studies. In Study 1, 18 survey sessions contain rows sharing identical participant numbers, timestamps, IP addresses, and contact details, indicating repeated submissions by the same respondent or duplicates that were not screened out before analysis. In Study 2, the healthy control group contains 500 observations despite the paper stating 481, and the N = 500 mean matches the reported statistic exactly. The clinical group subscale scores contain 17 values exceeding the scale maximum of 50, and all Study 4 item responses fall in the range 1-11 rather than the stated 0-10, suggesting a possible scale mismatch between groups; if unharmonised, the paper's primary finding - that chronic illness patients show higher Rest desire than controls - disappears entirely. The abstract additionally states the wrong direction for the psychiatric Move comparison. Study 3 data are absent from the repository, and Study 4 statistics cannot be reproduced from the released files.

Suggested Citation

  • Brodeur, Abel & Jakobsson, Niklas & Moore, Kristjan & Barbarioli, Bruno, 2026. "A comment on "Validation of the CRAVE-C scale in Chinese adults: a four-study examination of competing motivations for physical activity versus rest"," I4R Discussion Paper Series 324, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:i4rdps:324
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/344063/1/I4R-DP324.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:zbw:i4rdps:324. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.i4replication.org/ .

    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.