What the replication crisis means for intervention science

Frank Gerard Hillary, John D. Medaglia

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial

Abstract

The provocative paper by Ioannidis (2005) claiming that “most research findings are false” re-ignited longstanding concerns (see Meehl, 1967) that findings in the behavioral sciences are unlikely to be replicated. Then, a landmark paper by Nosek et al. (2015a) substantiated this conjecture, showing that, study reproducibility in psychology hovers at 40%. With the unfortunate failure of clinical trials in brain injury and other neurological disorders, it may be time to reconsider approaches not only in clinical interventions, but also how we establish their efficacy. A scientific community galvanized by a history of failed clinical trials and motivated by this “crisis” may be at critical cross-roads for change engendering a culture of transparent, open science where the primary goal is to test and not support hypotheses about specific interventions. The outcome of this scientific introspection could be a paradigm shift that accelerates our science bringing investigators closer to important advancements in rehabilitation medicine. In this commentary we offer a brief summary of how open science, study pre-registration and reorganization of scientific incentive structure could advance the clinical sciences.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalInternational Journal of Psychophysiology
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Crisis Intervention
Clinical Trials
Behavioral Sciences
Nervous System Diseases
Brain Injuries
Motivation
Rehabilitation
Research Personnel
Medicine
Psychology
Research

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Neuroscience(all)
  • Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
  • Physiology (medical)

Cite this

@article{9d3b8c7d83c143b1a117126cf4441557,
title = "What the replication crisis means for intervention science",
abstract = "The provocative paper by Ioannidis (2005) claiming that “most research findings are false” re-ignited longstanding concerns (see Meehl, 1967) that findings in the behavioral sciences are unlikely to be replicated. Then, a landmark paper by Nosek et al. (2015a) substantiated this conjecture, showing that, study reproducibility in psychology hovers at 40{\%}. With the unfortunate failure of clinical trials in brain injury and other neurological disorders, it may be time to reconsider approaches not only in clinical interventions, but also how we establish their efficacy. A scientific community galvanized by a history of failed clinical trials and motivated by this “crisis” may be at critical cross-roads for change engendering a culture of transparent, open science where the primary goal is to test and not support hypotheses about specific interventions. The outcome of this scientific introspection could be a paradigm shift that accelerates our science bringing investigators closer to important advancements in rehabilitation medicine. In this commentary we offer a brief summary of how open science, study pre-registration and reorganization of scientific incentive structure could advance the clinical sciences.",
author = "Hillary, {Frank Gerard} and Medaglia, {John D.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2019.05.006",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "International Journal of Psychophysiology",
issn = "0167-8760",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

What the replication crisis means for intervention science. / Hillary, Frank Gerard; Medaglia, John D.

In: International Journal of Psychophysiology, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalEditorial

TY - JOUR

T1 - What the replication crisis means for intervention science

AU - Hillary, Frank Gerard

AU - Medaglia, John D.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - The provocative paper by Ioannidis (2005) claiming that “most research findings are false” re-ignited longstanding concerns (see Meehl, 1967) that findings in the behavioral sciences are unlikely to be replicated. Then, a landmark paper by Nosek et al. (2015a) substantiated this conjecture, showing that, study reproducibility in psychology hovers at 40%. With the unfortunate failure of clinical trials in brain injury and other neurological disorders, it may be time to reconsider approaches not only in clinical interventions, but also how we establish their efficacy. A scientific community galvanized by a history of failed clinical trials and motivated by this “crisis” may be at critical cross-roads for change engendering a culture of transparent, open science where the primary goal is to test and not support hypotheses about specific interventions. The outcome of this scientific introspection could be a paradigm shift that accelerates our science bringing investigators closer to important advancements in rehabilitation medicine. In this commentary we offer a brief summary of how open science, study pre-registration and reorganization of scientific incentive structure could advance the clinical sciences.

AB - The provocative paper by Ioannidis (2005) claiming that “most research findings are false” re-ignited longstanding concerns (see Meehl, 1967) that findings in the behavioral sciences are unlikely to be replicated. Then, a landmark paper by Nosek et al. (2015a) substantiated this conjecture, showing that, study reproducibility in psychology hovers at 40%. With the unfortunate failure of clinical trials in brain injury and other neurological disorders, it may be time to reconsider approaches not only in clinical interventions, but also how we establish their efficacy. A scientific community galvanized by a history of failed clinical trials and motivated by this “crisis” may be at critical cross-roads for change engendering a culture of transparent, open science where the primary goal is to test and not support hypotheses about specific interventions. The outcome of this scientific introspection could be a paradigm shift that accelerates our science bringing investigators closer to important advancements in rehabilitation medicine. In this commentary we offer a brief summary of how open science, study pre-registration and reorganization of scientific incentive structure could advance the clinical sciences.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065610924&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065610924&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2019.05.006

DO - 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2019.05.006

M3 - Editorial

JO - International Journal of Psychophysiology

JF - International Journal of Psychophysiology

SN - 0167-8760

ER -