Quantitative Methodology Research: Is it on Psychologists' Reading Lists?

Two studies investigated the extent to which researchers are accessing quantitative methodology publications. The first study investigated the number of references to quantitative methodology sources in research articles from six prominent psychology journals. The analyses revealed that 39% of all articles reviewed did not include a quantitative reference of any kind and that 72% contained two or fewer. The second study targeted publications in quantitative methodology journals to determine the frequency with which they were being referenced in non-quantitative publications and other quantitative methodology publications. Results indicate that quantitative methodology articles are being referenced equally by non-quantitative and quantitative methodology researchers, but more importantly, that the number of references to quantitative methodology articles is very low. The results of these studies suggest that researchers are diligent in determining research protocol, procedures, and best practices within their own field, but that researchers are not frequently accessing the quantitative methodology literature to determine the best way to analyze their data. Alternatively, researchers might indeed invest time into determining recent and best statistical procedures, but do not indicate so in the reference section of their work; if this is the case then this paper should be a strong reminder to psychologists about referencing the statistical approaches they utilize.

[1]  Carl J. Huberty,et al.  Statistical Practices of Educational Researchers: An Analysis of their ANOVA, MANOVA, and ANCOVA Analyses , 1998 .

[2]  Leland Wilkinson,et al.  Statistical Methods in Psychology Journals Guidelines and Explanations , 2005 .

[3]  Warren Thorngate,et al.  The economy of attention and the development of psychology. , 1990 .

[4]  Henk F. Moed,et al.  Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation , 1899 .

[5]  T. Micceri.  The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures. , 1989 .

[6]  M. A. Safer,et al.  The Psychology of Referencing in Psychology Journal Articles , 2009, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[7]  Harry T. Reis,et al.  Publication Trends in JPSP: A Three-Decade Review , 1992 .

[8]  G. Cumming,et al.  Statistical Reform in Psychology , 2007, Psychological science.

[9]  H. Keselman,et al.  Modern robust data analysis methods: measures of central tendency. , 2003, Psychological methods.

[10]  Bruno D. Zumbo,et al.  The robustness of validity and efficiency of the related samples t-test in the presence of outliers , 2002 .

[11]  David M Erceg-Hurn,et al.  Modern robust statistical methods: an easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research. , 2008, The American psychologist.

[12]  B. L. Welch.  ON THE COMPARISON OF SEVERAL MEAN VALUES: AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH , 1951 .

[13]  J. G. Adair,et al.  The explosion of knowledge, references, and citations. Psychology's unique response to a crisis. , 2003, The American psychologist.

[14]  J. F. Howell,et al.  Pairwise Multiple Comparison Procedures with Unequal N’s and/or Variances: A Monte Carlo Study , 1976 .

[15]  James V. Bradley,et al.  A Common Situation Conducive to Bizarre Distribution Shapes , 1977 .

[16]  R. Grissom,et al.  Heterogeneity of variance in clinical data. , 2000, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[17]  Robert A. Cribbie,et al.  Tests for Treatment Group Equality When Data are Nonnormal and Heteroscedastic , 2007 .

[18]  J. G. Adair,et al.  The Explosion of Knowledge, References, and Citations: , 2003 .

[19]  R. Cribbie,et al.  The expanding role of quantitative methodologists in advancing psychology. , 2009 .