Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T07:13:22.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commensurability engineering is first and foremost a theoretical exercise

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2024

Joachim Vandekerckhove Open the ORCID record for Joachim Vandekerckhove [Opens in a new window]
Joachim Vandekerckhove*
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA joachim@uci.edu www.cidlab.com
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I provide a personal perspective on metastudies and emphasize lesser-known benefits. I stress the need for integrative theories to establish commensurability between experiments. I argue that mathematical social scientists should be engaged to develop integrative theories, and that likelihood functions provide a common mathematical framework across experiments. The development of quantitative theories promotes commensurability engineering on a larger scale.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e63
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baribault, B. (2019). Using hierarchical Bayesian models to test complex theories about the nature of latent cognitive processes (Doctoral thesis). University of California, Irvine. ProQuest ID: Baribault_uci_0030D_15781. Merritt ID: ark:/13030/m5cc62b5. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/31t8r1k3Google Scholar
Baribault, B., Donkin, C., Little, D., Trueblood, J., Oravecz, Z., van Ravenzwaaij, D., … Vandekerckhove, J. (2018). Meta-studies for robust tests of theory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115, 2607–2612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., Rajaratnam, N., & Gleser, G. C. (1963). Theory of generalizability: A liberalization of reliability theory. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 16(2), 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKay, M. L., Rubinchik, N., Li, Z., & De Boeck, P. (2022). Accelerating psychological science with metastudies: A demonstration using the risky-choice framing effect. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(6), 1704–1736. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221079611CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenett, R. S., & Rubinstein, A. (2021). Generalizing research findings for enhanced reproducibility: An approach based on verbal alternative representations. Scientometrics, 126, 4137–4151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03914-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubinchik, N. (2019). A demonstration of the meta-studies methodology using the risky-choice framing effect (Master's thesis). Ohio State University. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. Retrieved from http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1574201911927335Google Scholar
Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1123–1128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watts, D. (2017). Should social science be more solution-oriented? Nature Human Behavior, 1, 15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0015CrossRefGoogle Scholar