Dataset Information

Data from a pre-publication independent replication initiative examining ten moral judgement effects.

ABSTRACT: We present the data from a crowdsourced project seeking to replicate findings in independent laboratories before (rather than after) they are published. In this Pre-Publication Independent Replication (PPIR) initiative, 25 research groups attempted to replicate 10 moral judgment effects from a single laboratory's research pipeline of unpublished findings. The 10 effects were investigated using online/lab surveys containing psychological manipulations (vignettes) followed by questionnaires. Results revealed a mix of reliable, unreliable, and culturally moderated findings. Unlike any previous replication project, this dataset includes the data from not only the replications but also from the original studies, creating a unique corpus that researchers can use to better understand reproducibility and irreproducibility in science.

SUBMITTER: Tierney W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5058337 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Data from a pre-publication independent replication initiative examining ten moral judgement effects.

Tierney Warren W Schweinsberg Martin M Jordan Jennifer J Kennedy Deanna M DM Qureshi Israr I Sommer S Amy SA Thornley Nico N Madan Nikhil N Vianello Michelangelo M Awtrey Eli E Zhu Luke Lei LL Diermeier Daniel D Heinze Justin E JE Srinivasan Malavika M Tannenbaum David D Bivolaru Eliza E Dana Jason J Davis-Stober Clintin P CP du Plessis Christilene C Gronau Quentin F QF Hafenbrack Andrew C AC Liao Eko Yi EY Ly Alexander A Marsman Maarten M Murase Toshio T Schaerer Michael M Tworek Christina M CM Wagenmakers Eric-Jan EJ Wong Lynn L Anderson Tabitha T Bauman Christopher W CW Bedwell Wendy L WL Brescoll Victoria V Canavan Andrew A Chandler Jesse J JJ Cheries Erik E Cheryan Sapna S Cheung Felix F Cimpian Andrei A Clark Mark A MA Cordon Diana D Cushman Fiery F Ditto Peter H PH Amell Alice A Frick Sarah E SE Gamez-Djokic Monica M Grady Rebecca Hofstein RH Graham Jesse J Gu Jun J Hahn Adam A Hanson Brittany E BE Hartwich Nicole J NJ Hein Kristie K Inbar Yoel Y Jiang Lily L Kellogg Tehlyr T Legate Nicole N Luoma Timo P TP Maibeucher Heidi H Meindl Peter P Miles Jennifer J Mislin Alexandra A Molden Daniel C DC Motyl Matt M Newman George G Ngo Hoai Huong HH Packham Harvey H Ramsay P Scott PS Ray Jennifer L JL Sackett Aaron M AM Sellier Anne-Laure AL Sokolova Tatiana T Sowden Walter W Storage Daniel D Sun Xiaomin X Van Bavel Jay J JJ Washburn Anthony N AN Wei Cong C Wetter Erik E Wilson Carlos T CT Darroux Sophie-Charlotte SC Uhlmann Eric Luis EL

Scientific data 20161011

We present the data from a crowdsourced project seeking to replicate findings in independent laboratories before (rather than after) they are published. In this Pre-Publication Independent Replication (PPIR) initiative, 25 research groups attempted to replicate 10 moral judgment effects from a single laboratory's research pipeline of unpublished findings. The 10 effects were investigated using online/lab surveys containing psychological manipulations (vignettes) followed by questionnaires. Resul ...[more]

PMID: 27727246

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Publication bias is a form of scientific misconduct. It threatens the validity of research results and the credibility of science. Although several tests on publication bias exist, no in-depth evaluations are available that examine which test performs best for different research settings. Methods:Four tests on publication bias, Egger's test (FAT), p-uniform, the test of excess significance (TES), as well as the caliper test, were evaluated in a Monte Carlo simulation. Two different types of publication bias and its degree (0%, 50%, 100%) were simulated. The type of publication bias was defined either as file-drawer, meaning the repeated analysis of new datasets, or p-hacking, meaning the inclusion of covariates in order to obtain a significant result. In addition, the underlying effect (β = 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5), effect heterogeneity, the number of observations in the simulated primary studies (N = 100, 500), and the number of observations for the publication bias tests (K = 100, 1,000) were varied. Results:All tests evaluated were able to identify publication bias both in the file-drawer and p-hacking condition. The false positive rates were, with the exception of the 15%- and 20%-caliper test, unbiased. The FAT had the largest statistical power in the file-drawer conditions, whereas under p-hacking the TES was, except under effect heterogeneity, slightly better. The CTs were, however, inferior to the other tests under effect homogeneity and had a decent statistical power only in conditions with 1,000 primary studies. Discussion:The FAT is recommended as a test for publication bias in standard meta-analyses with no or only small effect heterogeneity. If two-sided publication bias is suspected as well as under p-hacking the TES is the first alternative to the FAT. The 5%-caliper test is recommended under conditions of effect heterogeneity and a large number of primary studies, which may be found if publication bias is examined in a discipline-wide setting when primary studies cover different research problems.

Project description:BackgroundHigh levels of moral distress in nursing professionals, of which oncology nurses are particularly prone, can negatively impact patient care, job satisfaction, and retention.Aim"Positive Attitudes Striving to Rejuvenate You: PASTRY" was developed at a tertiary cancer center to reduce the burden of moral distress among oncology nurses.Research designA Quality Improvement (QI) initiative was conducted using a pre- and post-intervention design, to launch PASTRY and measure its impact on moral distress of the nursing unit, using Hamric's Moral Distress Scale-Revised (MDS-R.) This program consisted of monthly 60-minute sessions allowing nurses to address morally distressing events and themes, such as clinicians giving "false hope" to patients or families. The PASTRY program sessions were led by certified clinicians utilizing strategies of discussion and mind-body practices.ParticipantsClinical nurses working on an adult leukemia/lymphoma unit.Ethical considerationsThis was a QI initiative, participation was voluntary, MDS-R responses were collected anonymously, and the institution's Ethics Committee oversaw PASTRY's implementation.FindingsWhile improvement in moral distress findings were not statistically significant, the qualitative and quantitative findings demonstrated consistent themes. The PASTRY program received strong support from nurses and institutional leaders, lowered the nursing unit's moral distress, led to enhanced camaraderie, and improved nurses' coping skills.DiscussionMeasurement of moral distress is innately challenging due to its complexity. This study reinforces oncology nurses have measurable moral distress. Interventions should be implemented for a safe and healing environment to explore morally distressing clinical experiences. Poor communication among multidisciplinary team members is associated with moral distress among nurses. Programs like PASTRY may empower nurses to build support networks for change within themselves and institutions.ConclusionThis QI initiative shows further research on moral distress reduction should be conducted to verify findings for statistical significance and so that institutional programs, like PASTRY, can be created.

Dataset Information

Data from a pre-publication independent replication initiative examining ten moral judgement effects.

Publications

Data from a pre-publication independent replication initiative examining ten moral judgement effects.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets