Prácticas Cuestionables en Estudios de Validez de Instrumentos de Medición PsicológicaComunalidades y Unicidades de la Crisis de Replicabilidad en el Campo de la Psicometría

Referencias bibliográficas

• Abad, F. J., Olea, J., Ponsoda, V., & García., C. (2011). Medición en Ciencias Sociales y de la Salud. Síntesis.
• Agha, R. A., Lee, S. Y., Jeong, K. J. L., Fowler, A. J., & Orgill, D. P. (2016). Reporting quality of observational studies in plastic surgery needs improvement: A systematic review. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 76(5), 585-589. https://doi.org/doi:10.1097/SAP.0000000000000419
• Agnoli, F., Wicherts, J., Veldkamp, C., Albiero, P., & Cubelli, R. (2017). Questionable research practices among italian research psychologists. PLOS ONE 12(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172792
• Aguayo, R. (2018). La investigación en el síndrome de burnout: Reflexión crítica desde una perspectiva metodológica. Apuntes de Psicología, 36(1-2), 93-100. https://doi.org/10.55414/ap.v36i1-2.715
• Aleksic, J., Alexa, A., Attwood, T. K., Hong, N. C., Dahlö, M., Davey, R., Dinkel, H., Förstner, K. U., Grigorov, I., Hériché, J.-K., Lahti, L., MacLean, D., Markie, M. L., Molloy, J., Schneider, M. V., Scott, C., Smith-Unna, R., & Vieira, B. M. (2014). An open science peer review oath. F1000Research, 3. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.5686.1
• Alister, M., Vickers-Jones, R., Sewell, D. K., & Ballard, T. (2021). How do we choose our giants? Perceptions of replicability in psychological science. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211018199
• Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report, 73, American Psychologist3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191.
• Asendorpf, J., Conner, M., De Fruyt, F., De Houwer, J., Denissen, J., Fiedler, K., Fiedler, S., Funder, D., Kliegl, R., Nosek, B., Perugini, M., Roberts, B., Schmitt, M., Van Aken, M., Weber, H., Wicherts, J. (2013). Recommendations for increasing replicability in psychology. European Journal of Personality, 27, 108-119. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1919
• Bakker, M., van Dijk, A., & Wicherts, J. M. (2012). The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 543-554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612459060
• Bandalos, D., & Gerstner, J. J. (2016). Using factor analysis in test construction. En K. Schweizer, K. y DiStefano, C. (Eds.), Principles and methods of test construction: Standards and recent advances (pp. 26-51). Hogrefe Publishing.
• Banks, G. C., Rogelberg, S. G., Woznyj, H. M., Landis, R. S., & Rupp, D. E. (2016). Evidence on questionable research practices: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(3), 323-338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9456-7
• Bem, D. J. (1987). Writing the empirical journal article. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Darley (Eds.), The complete academic: A practical guide for the beginning social scientist (pp. 171-201). Random House.
• Begley, G. C., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2015). Reproducibility in science: Improving the standard for basic and preclinical research. Circulation Research, 116-126.
• Blanco, F., Perales, J.C., & Vadillo,M.A. (2017). Pot la psicologia rescatar‐se a si mateixa? Incentius, biaix i replicabilitat. Anuari de psicologia de la Societat Valenciana de Psicologia, 18(2), 231‐252.
• Chambers, C. (2017). The seven deadly sins of psychology. In The Seven Deadly Sins of Psychology. Princeton University Press.
• Collins, F. S., & Tabak, L. A. (2014). NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature, 505, 612-613.
• Cristea, I. O., & Naudet, F. (2019). Increase value and reduce waste in research on psychological therapies. Behaviour Research and Therapy.
• Cudeck, R. (2007). Factor analysis in the year 2004: Still spry at 100. In Factor Analysis at 100 (pp. 15-22). Routledge.
• Dubois, J. M., Anderson, E. E., Chibnall, J., Carroll, K., Gibb, T., Ogbuka, C., & Rubbelke, T. (2013). Understanding research misconduct: A comparative analysis of 120 cases of professional wrongdoing. Accountability in Research, 20(5-6), 320-338.
• D'Urso, E. D., Maassen, E., van Assen, M. A., Nuijten, M. B., De Roover, K., & Wicherts, J. (2022). The dire disregard of measurement invariance testing in psychological science.
• Dunn, B., O’Mahen, H., Wright, K., & Brown, G. (2019). A commentary on research rigour in clinical psychological science: How to avoid throwing out the innovation baby with the research credibility bath water in the depression field. Behaviour Research and Therapy.
• Fabrigar, L., Wegener, D., MacCallum, R., & Strahan, E. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272-299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
• Fabrigar, L., & Wegener, D. (2012). Exploratory factor analysis. Oxford University Press.
• Ferrando, P., Lorenzo-Seva, U., Hernández-Dorado, A., & Muñiz, J. (2022). Decalogue for the Factor Analysis of Test Items. Psicothema 34(1), 7-17. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2021.456
• Fiedler, K., & Schwarz, N. (2016). Questionable research practices revisited. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(1), 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615612150
• Flake, J., & Fried, E. (2020). Measurement schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 456-465. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393
• Freiberg-Hoffmann, A., & Romero-Medina, A. (2021). Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students: Comparación de las propiedades psicométricas entre las versiones de lápiz-papel y online en estudiantes universitarios. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación – e Avaliação Psicológica, 4(64), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP61.4.11
• Ford, J., MacCallum, R., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39(2), 291-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00583.x
• García-Garzón, E., Lecuona, O., & Carbajal, G. (2018). Estudios de replicación, pre-registros y ciencia abierta en Psicología. Apuntes de Psicología, 36 (1-2), 75-83. https://doi.org/10.55414/ap.v36i1-2.713
• Garfield, E. (1996). What is the primordial reference for the phrase ‘publish or perish’. The Scientist, 10(12), 11.
• Goretzko, D., Pham, T. T. H., & Bühner, M. (2021). Exploratory factor analysis: Current use, methodological developments and recommendations for good practice. Current Psychology, 40(7), 3510-3521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00300-2
• Haig, B. (2014). Investigating the psychological world: Scientific method in the behavioral sciences. MIT press.
• Heilmayr, D. (2022). A course unit and presentation assignment to teach students about open science and replicability in psychology. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000324
• Henson, R., & Roberts, J. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393-416.
• Hofmann, B., Myhr, A., & Holm, S. (2013). Scientific dishonesty - A nationwide survey of doctoral students in Norway. BMC Med Ethics 14, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-14-3
• Ioannidis, J. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
• Izquierdo, I., Olea, J., & Abad, F. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis in validation studies: Uses and recommendations. Psicothema, 26(3), 395-400. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.349
• John, L., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524-532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953
• Kuffner, T., & Walker, S. (2019). Why are p-values controversial?. The American Statistician, 73(1), 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1277161
• Ledesma, R., Ferrando, P., & Tosi, J. (2019). Uso del Análisis Factorial Exploratorio en RIDEP. Recomendaciones para Autores y Revisores. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación – e Avaliação Psicológica, 52(3), 173-180. https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP52.3.13
• LeVeque, R. J., Mitchell, I. M., & Stodden, V. (2012). Reproducible research for scientific computing. Computing in Science & Engineering, 13-17.
• Lilienfeld, S., & Waldman, I. (Eds.). (2017). Psychological science under scrutiny: Recent challenges and proposed solutions. John Wiley & Sons.
• Lilienfeld, S., & Strother, A. (2020). Psychological measurement and the replication crisis: Four sacred cows. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 61(4), 281-288. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000236
• Lloret, S., Ferreres, A., Hernández, A., & Tomás, I. (2017). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: Análisis guiado según los datos empíricos y el software. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 33(2), 417-432. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.2.270211
• MacLeod, M. R., Michie, S., Roberts, I., Dirnagl, U., Chalmers, I., Ioannidis, J. P. A., et al. (2014). Biomedical research: Increasing value, reducing waste. The Lancet, 383(9912), 101-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62329-6.
• Martínez-Arias, M. R., Hernández-Lloreda, M. J. y Hernández-Lloreda, M. V. (2006). Psicometría. Alianza Editorial.
• Muñiz, J. (2018). Introducción a la Psicometría. Teoría Clásica y TRI. Pirámide.
• Norris, M., & Lecavalier, L. (2010). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in developmental disability psychological research. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(1), 8-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0816-2
• Nosek, B. A., & Lakens, D. (2014). Registered reports: A method to increase the credibility of published results [Editorial]. Social Psychology, 45(3), 137-141. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000192
• Nosek, B., Hardwicke, T., Moshontz, H., Allard, A., Corker, K., Dreber, A., Fidler, F., Hilgard, J., Struhl, M., Nuijten, M., Rohrer, J., Romero, F., Scheel, A., Scherer, L., Schönbrodt, F., & Vazire, S. Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology 2022 73:1, 719-748
• Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
• Pearson, M., Schwebel, F., Richards, D., & Witkiewitz, K. (2022). Examining replicability in addictions research: How to assess and ways forward. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 36(3), 260-270. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000730
• Picho, K., Maggio, L. A., & Artino, A. R. (2016). Science: The slow march of accumulating evidence. Perspectives on Medical Education, 5(6), 350-353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-016-0305-1
• Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
• Rabelo, A., Farias, J., Sarmet, M., Joaquim, T., Hoersting, R., Victorino L., Modesto, J., & Pilati, R. (2019). Questionable research practices among Brazilian psychological researchers: Result from replication study and an international comparison. International Journal of Psychology, 55(4), 674-683. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12632
• Ryan, J., & Tipu, S. (2022). Business and management research: Low instances of replication studies and a lack of author independence in replications. Research Policy, 51(1), 104408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104408
• Saunders, R., & Savulescu, J. (2008). Research ethics and lessons from Hwanggate: What can we learn from the Korean cloning fraud?. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(3), 214-221. http://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2007.023721
• Schimmel, L. M. C., & Van Koppen, P. J. (2017). Verdachten testen: Testgebruik in de forensische psychologie [testing suspects: Use of tests in forensic psychology]. De Psycholoog, 52(10), 34-42. https://www.tijdschriftdepsycholoog.nl/wetenschap/verdachten-testen/
• Shrout, P. E., & Rodgers, J. L. (2018). Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: Broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annual Review of Psychology, 69, 487-510.
• Simmons, J., Nelson, L., & Simonsohn, U. (2018). False-positive citations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 255-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617698146
• Toro, R., Peña-Sarmiento, M., Avendaño-Prieto, B. L., Mejía-Vélez, S., & Bernal-Torres, A. (2022). Análisis empírico del Coeficiente Alfa de Cronbach según opciones de respuesta, muestra y observaciones atípicas. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación – e Avaliaçãol Psicológica, 63(2), 17-30. https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP63.2.02
• Van Dijk, D., Manor, O., & Carey, L. (2014). Publication metrics and success on the academic job market. Current Biology, 24(11), R516-R517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.04.039
• Vanier, S., Schiavone, S., & Bottesini, J. (2022). Credibility beyond replicability: Improving the four validities in psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(2), 162-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211067779
• Waters, A. M., LeBeau, R. T., Young, K. S., Dowell, T. L., & Ryan, K. M. (2020). Towards the enhancement of quality publication practices in clinical psychological science. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 124, 103499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2019.103499
• Wigboldus, D.H.J., Dotsch, R. (2016). Encourage playing with data and discourage questionable reporting practices. Psychometrika 81, 27-36). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-015-9445-1
• Xie, Y., Wang, K., & Kong, Y. (2021). Prevalence of research misconduct and questionable research practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 27(4), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00314-9
• Zuckerman, H. (1977). Deviant behavior and social control in science. In E. Savarin (Ed.), Deviance and social change (pp. 87-138). Sage.
• Zuckerman, H. (1984). Norms and deviant behavior in science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 9(1), 7-13.