中英心理学期刊数据删除及删除标准的元研究  

A Meta-research on Data Exclusion and Exclusion Criteria in Domestic and International Psychology Journals

作　　者：谢宜骏 杨忠静 吴燕[1] Xie Yijun;Yang Zhongjing;Wu Yan(Department of Psychology,Jinghengyi College of Education,Hangzhou Normal University,Hangzhou 311121)

机构地区：[1]杭州师范大学经亨颐教育学院心理学系,杭州311121

出　　处：《心理学探新》2024年第4期374-384,共11页Psychological Exploration

摘　　要：数据删除在心理学研究中存在较大的操作空间,研究者借此获取显著统计结果的操作极大地威胁了科研结果的真实性和可重复性。研究以2000、2010、2020三个年度发表在《心理学报》和Psychological Science期刊上的实证研究为分析对象,结合量化和质性分析方法,揭示中英心理学期刊数据删除现状。结果显示,中英期刊存在数据删除的研究各占比为48.83%和35.56%,平均被试删除比例分别为16.31%和14.48%,在删除数据后未按相关标准进行报告的比例分别为11.48%和5.46%;在被试数据删除和观测值数据删除中,报告率最高的删除标准分别为基于极端值的删除(57.87%)和基于任务的删除(30.6%);研究报告的次级删除标准体现了一定的随意性。这些结果表明了建立更为严谨的标准化数据删除报告规范的必要性。Data exclusion practices in psychological research provide researchers with considerable flexibility,which poses a significant threat to the validity and reproducibility of scientific findings.We conducted a quantitative and qualitative analysis based on 688 research articles published in the years 2000,2010,and 2020 in the domestic journal Acta Psychological Sinica(APS)and the international journal Psychological Science(PS)for a better understanding of the research practices of data exclusion.The results showed that the proportion of studies employing data exclusion in APS and PS was 48.83%and 35.56%respectively.The average rates of participants exclusion were 16.31%and 14.48%for APS and PS,with 11.48%and 5.46%of studies failing to report exclusion criteria.The most frequently reported exclusion criteria were based on task(30.6%)and based on extreme values(57.87%).Flexibility existed in the setting of secondary exclusion criteria.These findings highlight the necessity of establishing more rigorous standardized reporting guidelines.

关 键 词：数据删除 元研究 有问题的研究操作 数据删除标准 

分 类 号：B841.2[哲学宗教—基础心理学]