+paper_id,pdf_filename,original_materials_link,original_poweranalysis_link,coded_claim3b,coded_claim4,original_statistic_analysis_type,original_samplesize_calculation_contributor,original_analytic_sample_size_units_reported,original_analytic_sample_size_value_reported,original_statistic_fulltext_reported,original_statistic_effect_type_reported,original_statistic_type_reported,original_statistic_value_reported,original_statistic_df1_reported,original_statistic_df2_reported,original_coefficient_type_reported,original_coefficient_value_reported,original_coefficient_se_reported,original_p_value_type_reported,original_p_value_tails_reported,original_p_value_value_reported,original_effect_size_fulltext_reported,original_effect_size_type_reported,original_effect_size_value_reported,original_analytic_sample_size_value_reference,original_statistic_fulltext_reference,original_statistic_effect_type_reference,original_statistic_type_reference,original_statistic_value_reference,original_statistic_df1_reference,original_statistic_df2_reference,original_coefficient_type_reference,original_coefficient_value_reference,original_coefficient_se_reference,original_p_value_tails_reference,original_p_value_value_reference,original_effect_size_type_reference,original_effect_size_value_reference,rr_stage1_analytic_sample_size,rr_stage2_analytic_sample_size,original_poweranalysis_notes,original_statsteam_contributor,original_es_ub_ci_nativeunits,original_es_lb_ci_nativeunits,original_pearsons_r_defined,original_pearsons_r_numeric,original_es_ub_ci_pearson,original_es_lb_ci_pearson,original_power_small,original_power_medium,original_power_50_original_effect,original_power_75_original_effect,original_statsteam_notes,to_do,priority,stats_rownumeOQm,Mason_JournExPsychGen_2012_eOQm,https://osf.io/zmdyg,https://osf.io/42e5k/,"a 2 (block: progressive, stagnant) X 2 (scale valence: positive, negative) repeated-measures ANOVA on participants’ responses to the positive and negative affect scales following the main experimental exposure. The critical manipulation was between lists of words constructed as either stagnant (a target word, and 11 items with a high probability of being mentioned by previous participants as a response to that word, e.g”lettuce, tomato, green, vegetable…“, or progressive (which were constructed by choosing words across association matrices, e.g.”salt, pepper, cat, dog…“)","A 2 (block: progressive, stagnant) X 2 (scale valence: positive, negative) repeated-measures ANOVA on participants’ mood ratings yielded a significant interaction, F(1, 76) = 6.63, p = .01, partial eta squared = .08",ANOVA,Melissa Kline,participants,77,"F(1, 76) = 6.63",interaction,F,6.63,1,76,NC,NC,NC,exact,NC,0.01,partial eta squared = .08,partial_eta_squared,0.08,,"F(1, 76) = 6.63",interaction,F,6.63,1,76,,,,,0.01,cohen_f_squared,0.0872368,218,485,"This is the first 'extended' original-paper stats set, used to test the workflow. As such, we hope it is a straightforward, within-subjects ANOVA! Note that the power calculations were performed on the statistics as reported, so these (a) are copied over into the 'recalculated' fields since they are the values used in the power analysis and (b) they have not actually been checked for internal consistency.",,,,,,,,,,,,,to_review,1,1z106,Pappu_JournAcaMarkSci_2014_yDyG_z106,https://osf.io/3urx9/?view_only=e0dda2b5a95540c4b053dfd87752574c,https://osf.io/hmbzp/,"We tested the hypotheses using structural equation modeling. The predictors were the sponsor (dummy coded), sponsorship relationship fit, sponsor-sponsee similarity, and their interaction. The outcome variable was participant intention to support the nonprofit, and the mediating variables were nonprofit clarity of positioning and the participant�s attitude toward the sponsorship | In Model B, in addition to estimating the main effects, we estimated a fit by similarity interaction on intent to support the nonprofit, through the mediator of clarity of positioning.","As predicted, fit and similarity jointly affected participants� intention to support the nonprofit (b = .10, p = .019) via clarity of positioning, as seen in Model B",SEM,Sam Field,participants,189,"b = .10, p = .019",interaction,NC,NC,NC,NC,NC,0.1,NC,exact,NC,0.019,NC,NC,NC,189,"coefficient = 0.10, p = 0.019",,,,,,path coefficient,0.1,0.04822441,one-tailed,0.019,,,821,1840,This replication has finished data collection; RR statistics aren't available yet but expected to be soon,,,,,,,,,,,,,to_do,1,2R8RN,Usta_JournMarketRes_2011_R8RN,https://osf.io/ks7ej/?view_only=5115343bd65c42639eb1fa8606d673d7,https://osf.io/mknax/,"Participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: They were reminded of either a past decision that they delegated or one that they made independently, in both conditions by being asked to briefly describe the decision and then describe the thoughts and feelings that experiencing the decision caused them to have. Participants were also shown pictures of two desserts (a chocolate cake and a fruit salad) and asked to indicate which one they would eat if they had the two desserts in front of them right then. The measure of self-regulatory resource depletion was participants’ choice of dessert, which was analyzed with a logistic regression.","A logistic regression analysis showed that the choice share of the chocolate cake among those who had been instructed to recall a delegated decision (70.6%) was significantly greater than among participants who had been asked to recall an independent decision (31.6%; χ2(1, 36) = 5.46, p < .03)",logistic regression,Chris Aberson,participants,36,"chi squared(1, 36) = 5.46, p < .03",main effect,chi-square,5.46,1,36,NC,NC,NC,less-than,NC,0.03,NC,NC,NC,,,,,,,,,,,two-tailed,,log_odds_ratio,1.648251,119,263,"A regression powered using log odds; sample size projections conducted by Chris A. using Gpower",,,,,,,,,,,,,to_do,2,3GXEW,Srinivasan_Cognition_2010_GXEW,https://osf.io/acmz2/?view_only=79221d82b98146808721d4d43c5e2ea3,https://osf.io/6gtwn/,"A 2 X 2 X 2 mixed-factor repeated-measures ANOVA examined the effects of the between-subjects factor of group (congruent or incongruent tone/line pairings), and the within-subjects factors of test trial type (novel or familiar) and difficulty (easy or difficult) on the participants� familiarity ratings","A mixed-factor repeated-measures ANOVA on Experiment 3 participants� ratings of item familiarity (with factors for congruent/incongruent condition group, novel vs.�familiar trial type, and easy vs.�difficult trial type) revealed a �group X novelty interaction, F(1, 32) = 4.38,p < .05, indicating that participants in the congruent group better distinguished the familiar from novel pairings than participants in the incongruent group",ANOVA,NC,participants,37,"F(1, 32) = 4.38,p < .05",interaction,F,4.38,1,32,NC,NC,NC,less-than,NC,0.05,NC,NC,NC,34,"F(1,32) = 4.38",,F,4.38,1,32,,,,,,,0.136875,141,311,"A more complex ANOVA case; stats team please review the power analysis to get additional 'reference' values - here and in other cases, these are left blank if I didn't feel certain of what something was or how calculated",,,,,,,,,,,,,to_do,2,4
0 commit comments