The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis

Jelte M Wicherts, Denny Borsboom, Judith Kats, Dylan Molenaar

American Psychologist, October 2006

 http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/61/7/726/

Abstract: The origin of the present comment lies in a failed attempt to obtain, through e-mailed requests, data reported in 141 empirical articles recently published by the American Psychological Association (APA). Our original aim was to reanalyze these data sets to assess the robustness of the research findings to outliers. We never got that far. In June 2005, we contacted the corresponding author of every article that appeared in the last two 2004 issues of four major APA journals. Because their articles had been published in APA journals, we were certain that all of the authors had signed the APA Certification of Compliance With APA Ethical Principles, which includes the principle on sharing data for reanalysis. Unfortunately, 6 months later, after writing more than 400 e-mails–and sending some corresponding authors detailed descriptions of our study aims, approvals of our ethical committee, signed assurances not to share data with others, and even our full resumes-we ended up with a meager 38 positive reactions and the actual data sets from 64 studies (25.7% of the total number of 249 data sets). This means that 73% of the authors did not share their data. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/61/7/726/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *