The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be?
Open accessAbstract
In anticipation of the impending revision of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, APA's Publications and Communications Board formed the Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) and charged it to provide the board with background and recommendations on information that should be included in manuscripts submitted to APA journals that report (a) new data collections and (b) meta-analyses. The JARS Group reviewed efforts in related fields to develop standards and sought input from other knowledgeable groups. The resulting recommendations contain (a) standards for all journal articles, (b) more specific standards for reports of studies with experimental manipulations or evaluations of interventions using research designs involving random or nonrandom assignment, and (c) standards for articles reporting meta-analyses. The JARS Group anticipated that standards for reporting other research designs (e.g., observational studies, longitudinal studies) would emerge over time. This report also (a) examines societal developments that have encouraged researchers to provide more details when reporting their studies, (b) notes important differences between requirements, standards, and recommendations for reporting, and (c) examines benefits and obstacles to the development and implementation of reporting standards.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The CONSORT checklist (Schulz et al., 2010) (Appendix A) and JARS guidelines (American Psychological Association, 2008) were applied in reporting the findings.”
From An online acceptance, commitment, and self-compassion based treatment to decrease psychological distress in people with type 2 diabetes: A feasibility randomised-controlled trial (2023) · cites this paper as American Psychological Association, 2008
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Dermyshi, E., Wang, Y., Yan, C., Hong, W., Qiu, G., Gong, X., & Zhang, T. (2017) · Neonatology · doi:10.1159/000454668 · Cited by 24,586
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M. C., Gray, J. A. M., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7023.71 · Cited by 15,769
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553
The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration
Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Moher, D., Egger, M., Davidoff, F., Elbourne, D., Gøtzsche, P. C., Lang, T., & for the CONSORT Group (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012 · Cited by 3,835
Des Jarlais, D. C., Lyles, C., Crepaz, N., & the TREND Group (2004) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.94.3.361 · Cited by 2,817
Evidence-based practice in psychology.
American Psychological Association (2006) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.61.4.271 · Cited by 2,478
Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach
Cooper, H. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071878644 · Cited by 1,716
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- American Psychological Association, Council of Editors 1952 Publication manual of the American Psychological Association Psychological Bulletin 49 Suppl, Pt 2
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Salk, R. H., Hyde, J. S., & Abramson, L. Y. (2017) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000102 · Cited by 2,622
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Nezu, A. M., & Greenberg, L. M. (2015) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp389 · Cited by 2,468
Perceived organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory.
Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2017) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206315575554 · Cited by 2,354
Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J. W., Frost, D. M., Josselson, R., & Suárez-Orozco, C. (2018) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000151 · Cited by 2,286
A Meta-Analysis of Interventions to Reduce Loneliness
Masi, C. M., Chen, H.-Y., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2011) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868310377394 · Cited by 1,995
Metadata
- Authors
- APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards
- Corresponding author
- APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards
- Venue
- American Psychologist
- Published
- 2008-12
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 839-851
- ISSN
- 0003-066X (ISSN-L)
- 1935-990X
- PMC
- PMC2957094
- OpenAlex
- W2444484626
- Cited by
- 571
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 15.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- American Psychologist (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD048962)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- reporting guidelines, research reporting, APA Publication Manual, meta-analysis reporting, intervention evaluation, random assignment, research transparency
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Psychology, Publishing, Research Design, Societies, Scientific, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Guidelines as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
