How best to quantify replication success? A simulation study on the comparison of replication success metrics

OnderzoeksoutputAcademicpeer review

1 Citaat (Scopus)
9 Downloads (Pure)

Samenvatting

To overcome the frequently debated crisis of confidence, replicating studies is becoming increasingly more common. Multiple frequentist and Bayesian measures have been proposed to evaluate whether a replication is successful, but little is known about which method best captures replication success. This study is one of the first attempts to compare a number of quantitative measures of replication success with respect to their ability to draw the correct inference when the underlying truth is known, while taking publication bias into account. Our results show that Bayesian metrics seem to slightly outperform frequentist metrics across the board. Generally, meta-analytic approaches seem to slightly outperform metrics that evaluate single studies, except in the scenario of extreme publication bias, where this pattern reverses.

Originele taal-2English
Artikelnummer201697
Aantal pagina's16
TijdschriftRoyal Society Open Science
Volume8
Nummer van het tijdschrift5
DOI's
StatusPublished - 2021

Citeer dit