References

 

PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH: GENERAL ISSUES

 

Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G., & van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review,111, 1061–1071.

 

Borsboom, D., Cramer, A., Kievit, R., Zand Scholten, A., & Franic, S. (2009). The end of construct validity. In R. Lissitz (Ed.), The concept of validity  (pp. 135–170). Charlotte, NC: Information  Age Publishers.

  

Bradley, M. (2017). The science pendulum: From programmatic to incremental and back?  Psychophysiology, 54 (1), 6–11.

 

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

 

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319.

 

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412–1427.

 

De Houwer, J. (2011). Why the cognitive approach in psychology would profit from a functional approach and vice versa. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 202–209. 

 

Eronen, M. I., & Bringmann, L. F. (2021). The theory crisis in psychology: How to move forward. Perspectives on Psychological Science.

 

Forstmeier W, Wagenmakers E-J, Parker TH (2016) Detecting andavoiding likely false-positive findings—a practical guide. Biological Reviews.

 

Garcia-Marques, L., & Ferreira, M. (2011). Friends and foes of theory constructionin psychological science: Vague dichotomies, unified theories of cognition,and the new experimentalism. Perspectives on Psychological Science,6(2),192–201.

 

Hahn, U. (2011) The problem of circularity in evidence, argument, and explanation. Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(2):172–82.

 

Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 527–535.

 

Kenny, D. A. (2019). Enhancing validity in psychological research. American Psychologist, 74(9), 1018–1028.

 

McCrae, R. R., & Weiss, A. (2007). Observer ratings of personality. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (p. 259–272). The Guilford Press.

 

McPhetres J, Albayrak-Aydemir N, Barbosa Mendes A, Chow EC, Gonzalez-Marquez P, Loukras E, et al. (2021) A decade of theory as reflected in Psychological Science (2009–2019). PLoS ONE 16(3): e0247986.

 

Meiser, T. (2011). Much pain, little gain? Paradigm-specific models and methods in experimental psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 183-191.

 

Munafò, M. R., Nosek, B. A., Bishop, D. V. M., Button, K. S., Chambers, C. D., Percie du Sert, N., Simonsohn, U., Wagenmakers, E., Ware, J. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Percie, N., Simonsohn, U., & Wagenmakers, E. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Publishing Group, 1(January), 1–9. 

 

Niv, Y. (2020). On the primacy of behavioral research for understandingthe brain. In A. J. Lerner, S. Cullen, & S.-J. Leslie (Eds.), Current con-troversies in philosophy of cognitive science (pp. 134–151). Routledge.

 

Nuzzo, R. (2015). How scientists fool themselves - And how they can stop. Nature, 526(7572), 182–185. 

 

Oberauer, K., & Lewandowsky, S. (2019). Addressing the theory crisis in psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(5), 1596–1618.

 

Paulhus, D. L., & Vazire, S. (2007). The self-report method. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, and R. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 224–239). New York: Guilford Press.

 

Pashler, H., & Harris, C. R. (2012). Is the replicability crisis overblown? Three arguments examined. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 531–536.

 

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common methods biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

 

Rohrer, J. M., Tierney, W., Uhlmann, E. L., DeBruine, L. M., Heyman, T., Jones, B. C., … Yarkoni, T. (2021). Putting the self in self-correction: Findings from the Loss-ofConfidence Project. Perspectives on Psychological Science

 

 STATISTICAL ISSUES

 

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-media-tor variable distinction in social psychological research:Conceptual strategies and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

 

Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J.,Robinson, E. S. J., & Munafo, M. R. (2013). Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,14(5), 365–376. 

 

Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (2019). The unappreciated heterogeneity of effect sizes: Implications for power, precision, planning of research, and replication. Psychological Methods, 24(5), 578–589.

 

Fiedler, K. (2011). Voodoo correlations are everywhere—not only in neuroscience. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 6, 163–171.

 

Lakens, D. (2017). Equivalence tests: A practical primer for t tests, correlations, and meta-analyses. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 355–362.

 

Loftus, G.R. & Masson, M.E.J. (1994) Using confidence intervals in within-subjects designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476-490.

 

Loftus, G.R. (2002). Analysis, interpretation, and visual presentation of data. Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology, Third Edition, Vol 4. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 339-390.

 

Nieuwenhuis, S., Forstmann, B.U., Wagenmakers, E., (2011). Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance. Nature Neuroscience 14, 1105e1107

 

Rousselet, G. A., Pernet, C. R., & Wilcox, R. R. (2017). Beyond differences in means: Robust graphical methods to compare two groups in neuroscience. European Journal of Neuroscience, 46, 1738–1748.

 

Wagenmakers, E. J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., Love, J., ... & Morey, R. D. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 25(1), 35-57.

 

Wagenmakers, E. J., Love, J., Marsman, M., Jamil, T., Ly, A., Verhagen, J., ... & Morey, R. D. (2018). Bayesian inference for psychology. Part II: Example applications with JASP. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 25(1), 58-76.

 

 

SCIENTIFIC WRITING

 

Abdulai, R., T. and Owusu-Ansah, A. (2014). Essential Ingredients of a Good Research Proposal for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students in the Social Sciences, SAGE Open, July-September 2014, 1–15

 

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1997). Writing narrative literature reviews. Review of General Psychology, 1, 311–320. 

 

Landrum, R. E. (2013). Writing in the APA style: Faculty perspectives of competence and importance. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 12(3), 259–265

 

Siddaway,A.P.,Wood,A.M.,&Hedges,L.V. (2019).How to do asystematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70,747–770

 

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2013). Writing successful grant proposals from the top down and the bottom up. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

 

 

EVALUATING MERIT AMONG SCIENTISTS

 

Byrnes, J. P. (2007). Publishing trends of psychology faculty during their pretenure years. Psychological Science, 18, 283–286

 

Diener, E. (2016). Improving Departments of Psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 909–912.

 

Phillips, N. (2007). Citation counts, prestige measurement, and graduate training in social psychology. Dialogue, 22, 24–26.

 

Radosic, N., & Diener, E. (2021). Citation Metrics in Psychological Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science.

 

Simonton, D. K. (2016). Giving credit where credit’s due: Why it’s so hard to do in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 888–892.

 

Sternberg R. J. (2016). "Am I Famous Yet?" Judging Scholarly Merit in Psychological Science: An Introduction. Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 11(6), 877–881.

 

Sternberg, R. (2018). Evaluating merit among scientists. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition,
7, 209–216.

 

Sternberg, R.J., & Sternberg, K. (2017). Measuring scientific reasoning for graduate admissions in psychology and related disciplines. Journal of Intelligence. http://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/3/29/pdf

 

METHODOLOGY: SPECIFIC TOPICS 

 

Bowes SM, Ammirati RJ, Costello TH, et al. (2020) Cognitive biases, heuristics, and logical fallacies in clinical practice: A brief field guide for practicing clinicians and supervisors. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 51(5): 435–445.

 

Guidi, J., et al. (2018). Methodological recommendations for trials of psychological interventions. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 87, 276-284

 

Kazdin, A. E. (2020). Single-case experimental designs: Characteristics, changes, and challenges. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 115(1), 56-85.

 

Kriegeskorte, N., Mur, M., & Bandettini, P. A. (2008). Representational similarity analysis-connecting the branches of systems neuroscience. Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2, 4.

 

McCrae, R. R., & Weiss, A. (2007). Observer ratings of personality. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (p. 259–272). The Guilford Press.

 

Paulhus, D. L., & Vazire, S. (2007). The self-report method. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, and R. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 224–239). New York: Guilford Press.

 

Rosellini,  A.J., & Brown, T.A. (2021).  Developing and Validating Clinical Questionnaires. Annual  Review of  Clinical Psychology,  7;17:55-81.