Outlier removal and the relation with reporting errors and quality of psychological research.

Marjan Bakker, Jelte M Wicherts
Author Information
  1. Marjan Bakker: Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  2. Jelte M Wicherts: Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The removal of outliers to acquire a significant result is a questionable research practice that appears to be commonly used in psychology. In this study, we investigated whether the removal of outliers in psychology papers is related to weaker evidence (against the null hypothesis of no effect), a higher prevalence of reporting errors, and smaller sample sizes in these papers compared to papers in the same journals that did not report the exclusion of outliers from the analyses.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We retrieved a total of 2667 statistical results of null hypothesis significance tests from 153 articles in main psychology journals, and compared results from articles in which outliers were removed (N = 92) with results from articles that reported no exclusion of outliers (N = 61). We preregistered our hypotheses and methods and analyzed the data at the level of articles. Results show no significant difference between the two types of articles in median p value, sample sizes, or prevalence of all reporting errors, large reporting errors, and reporting errors that concerned the statistical significance. However, we did find a discrepancy between the reported degrees of freedom of t tests and the reported sample size in 41% of articles that did not report removal of any data values. This suggests common failure to report data exclusions (or missingness) in psychological articles.
CONCLUSIONS: We failed to find that the removal of outliers from the analysis in psychological articles was related to weaker evidence (against the null hypothesis of no effect), sample size, or the prevalence of errors. However, our control sample might be contaminated due to nondisclosure of excluded values in articles that did not report exclusion of outliers. Results therefore highlight the importance of more transparent reporting of statistical analyses.

References

  1. Res Synth Methods. 2010 Jul;1(3-4):169-84 [PMID: 26061464]
  2. Behav Res Methods. 2011 Sep;43(3):666-78 [PMID: 21494917]
  3. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Jul 20;97(14):1043-55 [PMID: 16030302]
  4. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Nov;7(6):543-54 [PMID: 26168111]
  5. Behav Res Methods. 2013 Jun;45(2):595-601 [PMID: 23055167]
  6. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014 Apr;143(2):534-47 [PMID: 23855496]
  7. JAMA. 2002 Jan 23-30;287(4):473-80 [PMID: 11798369]
  8. Psychol Sci. 2011 Nov;22(11):1359-66 [PMID: 22006061]
  9. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2013;66(12):2303-9 [PMID: 24205936]
  10. Psychol Sci. 2014 Jan;25(1):3-6 [PMID: 24285431]
  11. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013 Jul;8(4):424-32 [PMID: 26173121]
  12. PLoS One. 2009 Sep 18;4(9):e7078 [PMID: 19763261]
  13. Bioethics. 2001 Apr;15(2):125-34 [PMID: 11697377]
  14. Curr Biol. 2014 Jan 6;24(1):94-97 [PMID: 24361065]
  15. Am Psychol. 2006 Oct;61(7):726-8 [PMID: 17032082]
  16. Psicothema. 2013;25(3):408-14 [PMID: 23910759]
  17. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Nov;7(6):632-8 [PMID: 26168122]
  18. PLoS One. 2007 Mar 21;2(3):e308 [PMID: 17375194]
  19. Psychol Methods. 2014 Sep;19(3):409-27 [PMID: 24773354]
  20. Psychol Sci. 2012 May 1;23(5):524-32 [PMID: 22508865]
  21. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e26828 [PMID: 22073203]
  22. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Nov;7(6):528-30 [PMID: 26168108]

MeSH Term

Humans
Psychology
Research

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0articlesoutliersreportingerrorsremovalsamplereportpsychologypapersnullhypothesisprevalenceexclusionstatisticalresultsreporteddatapsychologicalsignificantresearchrelatedweakerevidenceeffectsizescomparedjournalsanalysessignificancetestsResultsHoweverfindsizevaluesBACKGROUND:acquireresultquestionablepracticeappearscommonlyusedstudyinvestigatedwhetherhighersmallerMETHODSANDFINDINGS:retrievedtotal2667153mainremovedN = 92N = 61preregisteredhypothesesmethodsanalyzedlevelshowdifferencetwotypesmedianpvaluelargeconcerneddiscrepancydegreesfreedomt41%suggestscommonfailureexclusionsmissingnessCONCLUSIONS:failedanalysiscontrolmightcontaminatedduenondisclosureexcludedthereforehighlightimportancetransparentOutlierrelationquality

Similar Articles

Cited By