Wendy Higgins
Sessions
Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is often taken as a reliable indicator of credible research. We argue that this view places unrealistic expectations on journal-based peer review. Given practical constraints on time and expertise, it is not feasible for journal-based peer review to consistently provide thorough vetting of all vital aspects of research credibility prior to publication. With greater transparency, however, it could serve as an effective initial quality filter, identifying research that merits closer scrutiny through post-publication peer review.
In psychological research, the validity of measurements is often taken for granted. This is a serious problem because poorly validated measurements mean weak scientific inferences. Let’s do something about it. Come join the Measurement Critic’s Challenge!
What is the Measurement Critic’s Challenge? It’s a call to researchers to stress test psychological measurement procedures by actively searching for threats to their validity potential, that is, their capacity to produce valid measurements. The more stress tests a measurement procedure passes, the more confident we can be in its output. In this unconference, we will discuss common threats to measurement validity and have a go at spotting two types of validity threats: confounds and conceptual flaws.