Advancing the Rigour and Integrity of Our Science: The Registered Reports Initiative

Probst, Tahira M.; Hagger, Martin S.

doi:10.1002/smi.2645

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The expanding literature on implementation intention and planning interventions in health behaviour makes such a review timely and would permit subgroup analyses that would enable the issues identified in the current article to be addressed empirically rather than through consensus among experts. In addition, we also acknowledge the need for researchers examining effects of planning interventions to adhere to 'open science' principles (Open Science Collaboration, 2015) such as the need for pre-registration of trials using planning techniques and the submission of data for secondary analyses to allay the potential for publication bias (Pashler & Harris, 2012) and dubious practices that limit scientific progress and contribution such as 'p-hacking' (Head, Holman, Lanfear, Kahn, & Jennions, 2015), 'salami slicing' (Editorial, 2005), and HARKing (Probst & Hagger, 2015). Finally, we acknowledge the need for better translational research in planning interventions.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation intention and planning interventions in Health Psychology: Recommendations from the Synergy Expert Group for research and practice

Hagger¹,

Luszczynska

Wit

et al. 2016

Psychology & Health

Self Cite

190

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current article details a position statement and recommendations for future research and practice on planning and implementation intentions in health contexts endorsed by the Synergy Expert Group. The Group comprised world-leading researchers in health and social psychology and behavioural medicine who convened to discuss priority issues in planning interventions in health contexts and develop a set of recommendations for future research and practice. The Expert Group adopted a nominal groups approach and voting system to elicit and structure priority issues in planning interventions and implementation intentions research. Fortytwo priority issues identified in initial discussions were further condensed to 18 key issues, including definitions of planning and implementation intentions and 17 priority research areas.Each issue was subjected to voting for consensus among group members and formed the basis of the position statement and recommendations. Specifically, the Expert Group endorsed statements and recommendations in the following areas: generic definition of planning and specific definition of implementation intentions, recommendations for better testing of mechanisms, guidance on testing the effects of moderators of planning interventions, recommendations on the social aspects of planning interventions, identification of the preconditions that moderate effectiveness of planning interventions, and recommendations for research on how people use plans.

show abstract

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation intention and planning interventions in Health Psychology: Recommendations from the Synergy Expert Group for research and practice

Hagger¹,

Luszczynska

Wit

et al. 2016

Psychology & Health

Self Cite

190

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Posteriori justification of tests that fail to support proposed networks undermine scientific progress by making model development an unstructured, subjective process that lies outside the bounds of scientific rigor. Trends toward the pre-registration of study hypotheses, protocols, and analytic procedures is a useful means to restrict post hoc decision making ( Probst and Hagger, 2015 ; Jonas and Cesario, 2016 ).…”

Section: Guidelines For Model Testing Based On Nomological Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

On Nomological Validity and Auxiliary Assumptions: The Importance of Simultaneously Testing Effects in Social Cognitive Theories Applied to Health Behavior and Some Guidelines

2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tests of social cognitive theories provide informative data on the factors that relate to health behavior, and the processes and mechanisms involved. In the present article, we contend that tests of social cognitive theories should adhere to the principles of nomological validity, defined as the degree to which predictions in a formal theoretical network are confirmed. We highlight the importance of nomological validity tests to ensure theory predictions can be disconfirmed through observation. We argue that researchers should be explicit on the conditions that lead to theory disconfirmation, and identify any auxiliary assumptions on which theory effects may be conditional. We contend that few researchers formally test the nomological validity of theories, or outline conditions that lead to model rejection and the auxiliary assumptions that may explain findings that run counter to hypotheses, raising potential for ‘falsification evasion.’ We present a brief analysis of studies (k = 122) testing four key social cognitive theories in health behavior to illustrate deficiencies in reporting theory tests and evaluations of nomological validity. Our analysis revealed that few articles report explicit statements suggesting that their findings support or reject the hypotheses of the theories tested, even when findings point to rejection. We illustrate the importance of explicit a priori specification of fundamental theory hypotheses and associated auxiliary assumptions, and identification of the conditions which would lead to rejection of theory predictions. We also demonstrate the value of confirmatory analytic techniques, meta-analytic structural equation modeling, and Bayesian analyses in providing robust converging evidence for nomological validity. We provide a set of guidelines for researchers on how to adopt and apply the nomological validity approach to testing health behavior models.

show abstract

“…Posteriori justification of tests that fail to support proposed networks undermine scientific progress by making model development an unstructured, subjective process that lies outside the bounds of scientific rigor. Trends toward the pre-registration of study hypotheses, protocols, and analytic procedures is a useful means to restrict post hoc decision making (Probst and Hagger, 2015;Jonas and Cesario, 2016). (4) Replication or reformulation.…”

Section: Guidelines For Model Testing Based On Nomological Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

On nomological validity and auxiliary assumptions: The importance of simultaneously testing effects in social cognitive theories applied to health behavior and some guidelines

Hagger¹,

Gucciardi²,

chatzisarantis³

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tests of social cognitive theories provide informative data on the factors that relate to health behavior, and the processes and mechanisms involved. In the present article, we contend that tests of social cognitive theories should adhere to the principles of nomological validity, defined as the degree to which predictions in a formal theoretical network are confirmed. We highlight the importance of nomological validity tests to ensure theory predictions can be disconfirmed through observation. We argue that researchers should be explicit on the conditions that lead to theory disconfirmation, and identify any auxiliary assumptions on which theory effects may be conditional. We contend that few researchers formally test the nomological validity of theories, or outline conditions that lead to model rejection and the auxiliary assumptions that may explain findings that run counter to hypotheses, raising potential for 'falsification evasion. ' We present a brief analysis of studies (k = 122) testing four key social cognitive theories in health behavior to illustrate deficiencies in reporting theory tests and evaluations of nomological validity. Our analysis revealed that few articles report explicit statements suggesting that their findings support or reject the hypotheses of the theories tested, even when findings point to rejection. We illustrate the importance of explicit a priori specification of fundamental theory hypotheses and associated auxiliary assumptions, and identification of the conditions which would lead to rejection of theory predictions. We also demonstrate the value of confirmatory analytic techniques, meta-analytic structural equation modeling, and Bayesian analyses in providing robust converging evidence for nomological validity. We provide a set of guidelines for researchers on how to adopt and apply the nomological validity approach to testing health behavior models.

show abstract

Advancing the Rigour and Integrity of Our Science: The Registered Reports Initiative

Cited by 11 publications

References 10 publications

Implementation intention and planning interventions in Health Psychology: Recommendations from the Synergy Expert Group for research and practice

Implementation intention and planning interventions in Health Psychology: Recommendations from the Synergy Expert Group for research and practice

On Nomological Validity and Auxiliary Assumptions: The Importance of Simultaneously Testing Effects in Social Cognitive Theories Applied to Health Behavior and Some Guidelines

On nomological validity and auxiliary assumptions: The importance of simultaneously testing effects in social cognitive theories applied to health behavior and some guidelines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About