Narcissism, Entitlement, and Questionable Research Practices in Counseling: A Pilot Study

Davis, Mark S.; Wester, Kelly L.; King, Bridgett A.

doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2008.tb00498.x

Cited by 24 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 28 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Author‐noted issues related to faulty, incorrect, or outdated email addresses were coded into this category. Examples include “Due to the software used, data pertaining to undeliverable emails were unavailable” (Young & Bryan, 2015, p. 4); “the 20.5% of individuals who could not be reached via the email address in the ACES membership database” (Davis, Wester, & King, 2008, p. 208); and “Of the 11,113 emails sent, 7,021 (63%) were returned undeliverable” (Sikes, Remley, & Hays, 2010, p. 20). Of the nine studies evidencing this code, five obtained participant email addresses from professional associations.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Online Response Rates in Four Counseling Journals

Poynton

DeFouw

Morizio

2019

Jour of Counseling & Develop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review of articles published in 4 counseling journals found 207 articles that used online recruitment, of which 98 (47.3%) reported a response rate. These 98 studies collectively contained 22,466 individual participants. Results showed that nearly one third of all empirical articles used online recruitment, and the average response rate was 34.2% (SD = 22.6). Response rates are further described by journal, population, research methodology, and recruitment strategy. Researcher‐reported issues with online recruitment and data collection were also analyzed qualitatively, and recommendations for researchers are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Online Response Rates in Four Counseling Journals

Poynton

DeFouw

Morizio

2019

Jour of Counseling & Develop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also analyzed data using weighted multilevel regression, a method that yields similar but more conservative estimates (30). A complete discussion of this method and all results obtained with it can be found in Supporting Information.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Individual integrity: Narcissism or other psychopathologies underlie misbehavior and unethical decision making and therefore might also affect individual research practices (29)(30)(31).…”

Section: Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

Meta-assessment of bias in science

Fanelli

Costas

Ioannidis

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

304

295

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous biases are believed to affect the scientific literature, but their actual prevalence across disciplines is unknown. To gain a comprehensive picture of the potential imprint of bias in science, we probed for the most commonly postulated bias-related patterns and risk factors, in a large random sample of meta-analyses taken from all disciplines. The magnitude of these biases varied widely across fields and was overall relatively small. However, we consistently observed a significant risk of small, early, and highly cited studies to overestimate effects and of studies not published in peer-reviewed journals to underestimate them. We also found at least partial confirmation of previous evidence suggesting that US studies and early studies might report more extreme effects, although these effects were smaller and more heterogeneously distributed across meta-analyses and disciplines. Authors publishing at high rates and receiving many citations were, overall, not at greater risk of bias. However, effect sizes were likely to be overestimated by early-career researchers, those working in small or long-distance collaborations, and those responsible for scientific misconduct, supporting hypotheses that connect bias to situational factors, lack of mutual control, and individual integrity. Some of these patterns and risk factors might have modestly increased in intensity over time, particularly in the social sciences. Our findings suggest that, besides one being routinely cautious that published small, highly-cited, and earlier studies may yield inflated results, the feasibility and costs of interventions to attenuate biases in the literature might need to be discussed on a discipline-specific and topic-specific basis.bias | misconduct | meta-analysis | integrity | meta-research

show abstract

“…In all of these cases, scientists are guided by time-proven criteria when evaluating their work. On the contrary, the measuring function of a norm is not executed when the so-called questionable research practices are used (Steneck, 2006;Davis, Wester, & King, 2008). The reason why the norm of following these practices does not execute the said function is the formal uncertainty of the norm.…”

Section: A Measuring Function Of a Norm In Scientific Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Researcher as Subject and Authority of Norm

Efanova¹

2017

European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this report, we examine the activities of a researcher through the lens of the universal category of a norm, which reflects the idea of the due state of affairs for a class of objects and has a set of properties and functions inherent in any manifestation of the norm. The activity of a present-day scientist is, on the one hand, the object of normalization by the state authorities and social institutions. On the other hand, when acquiring new knowledge, a scientist participates in creating new norms that can affect the lives of many people. Consequently, a scientist in the modern society is simultaneously a source, or authorityof some norms and thesubjectof other norms. The role of a scientist as the subject or authority of a norm becomes apparent when a norm fulfills its main functions, namely informational, forecasting, regulatory and measuring (evaluation) ones. Each of the functions of a norm is implemented because a norm has a set of properties common to the whole category as well as due to the interrelation and interdependence of the functions themselves. A state of affairs compliant with the norm does not usually attract attention; therefore, it is expedient to study the action of a norm using the cases where the norm is not followed. An anomalous situation emerges, if a norm does not fulfill one or several of its functions, because some of the attributes of the situation contradict a certain categorical property of the norm.

show abstract

Narcissism, Entitlement, and Questionable Research Practices in Counseling: A Pilot Study

Cited by 24 publications

References 28 publications

A Systematic Review of Online Response Rates in Four Counseling Journals

A Systematic Review of Online Response Rates in Four Counseling Journals

Meta-assessment of bias in science

Researcher as Subject and Authority of Norm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About