journal article Jul 19, 2019

Methodological reporting behavior, sample sizes, and statistical power in studies of event‐related potentials: Barriers to reproducibility and replicability

Psychophysiology Vol. 56 No. 11 · Wiley
View at Publisher Save 10.1111/psyp.13437
Abstract
Abstract

Methodological reporting guidelines for studies of ERPs were updated in
Psychophysiology
in 2014. These guidelines facilitate the communication of key methodological parameters (e.g., preprocessing steps). Failing to report key parameters represents a barrier to replication efforts, and difficulty with replicability increases in the presence of small sample sizes and low statistical power. We assessed whether guidelines are followed and estimated the average sample size and power in recent research. Reporting behavior, sample sizes, and statistical designs were coded for 150 randomly sampled articles from five high‐impact journals that frequently published ERP research from 2011 to 2017. An average of 63% of guidelines were reported, and reporting behavior was similar across journals, suggesting that gaps in reporting is a shortcoming of the field rather than any specific journal. Publication of the guidelines article had no impact on reporting behavior, suggesting that editors and peer reviewers are not enforcing these recommendations. The average sample size per group was 21. Statistical power was conservatively estimated as .72‒.98 for a large effect size, .35‒.73 for a medium effect, and .10‒.18 for a small effect. These findings indicate that failing to report key guidelines is ubiquitous and that ERP studies are primarily powered to detect large effects. Such low power and insufficient following of reporting guidelines represent substantial barriers to replication efforts. The methodological transparency and replicability of studies can be improved by the open sharing of processing code and experimental tasks and by a priori sample size calculations to ensure adequately powered studies.
Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References
75
[1]
Baker D. H. "Power contours: Optimising sample size and precision in experimental psychology and human neuroscience" ArXiv (2019)
[7]
Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience

Katherine S. Button, John P. A. Ioannidis, Claire Mokrysz et al.

Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10.1038/nrn3475
[11]
Carter E. C. "Correcting for bias in psychology: A comparison of meta‐analytic methods" PsyArXiv (2018)
[13]
Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence

Iain Chalmers, Paul Glasziou

The Lancet 10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60329-9
[15]
Clayson P. E. "Error‐related negativity and reward positivity as biomarkers of depression: P‐curving the evidence" International Journal of Psychophysiology
[23]
Donchin E. (1977)
[24]
Edgar J. C. (2005)
[25]
Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses

Franz Faul, Edgar Erdfelder, Axel Buchner et al.

Behavior Research Methods 10.3758/brm.41.4.1149
[33]
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

John P. A. Ioannidis

PLoS Medicine 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
[34]
Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated

John P. A. Ioannidis

Epidemiology 10.1097/ede.0b013e31818131e7
[39]
Equivalence Tests

Daniël Lakens

Social Psychological and Personality Science 10.1177/1948550617697177
[45]
How to get statistically significant effects in any ERP experiment (and why you shouldn't)

Steven J. Luck, Nicholas Gaspelin

Psychophysiology 10.1111/psyp.12639
[47]
A manifesto for reproducible science

Marcus R. Munafò, Brian A. Nosek, Dorothy V. M. Bishop et al.

Nature Human Behaviour 10.1038/s41562-016-0021

Showing 50 of 75 references

Metrics
149
Citations
75
References
Details
Published
Jul 19, 2019
Vol/Issue
56(11)
License
View
Cite This Article
Peter E. Clayson, Kaylie A. Carbine, Scott A. Baldwin, et al. (2019). Methodological reporting behavior, sample sizes, and statistical power in studies of event‐related potentials: Barriers to reproducibility and replicability. Psychophysiology, 56(11). https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.13437
Related

You May Also Like

Heart rate variability: Origins, methods, and interpretive caveats

Gary G. Berntson, J. THOMAS BIGGER · 1997

2,977 citations

The pupil as a measure of emotional arousal and autonomic activation

Margaret M. Bradley, Laura Miccoli · 2008

1,539 citations

Guidelines for Human Electromyographic Research

Alan J. Fridlund, John T. Cacioppo · 1986

1,303 citations