Cited by 1,099Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceReliability and Agreement in MeasurementMental Health Research Topics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lack of group-to-individual generalizability is a threat to human subjects research

Open access
Fisher, Aaron J., Medaglia, John D., Jeronimus, Bertus F.·2018·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Significance: The current study quantified the degree to which group data are able to describe individual participants. We utilized intensive repeated-measures data—data that have been collected many times, across many individuals—to compare the distributions of bivariate correlations calculated within subjects vs. those calculated between subjects. Because the vast majority of social and medical science research aggregates across subjects, we aimed to assess how closely such aggregations reflect their constituent individuals. We provide evidence that conclusions drawn from aggregated data may be worryingly imprecise. Specifically, the variance in individuals is up to four times larger than in groups. These data call for a focus on idiography and open science that may substantially alter best-practice guidelines in the medical and behavioral sciences.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1711978115

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 50 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. L Boltzmann, On the relation between the second law of the mechanical theory of heat and the probability calculus with respect to the theorems on thermal equilibrium. Kais Akad Wiss Wien Math Natumiss Classe 76, 373–435 (1877).
  2. PCM Molenaar, Rejoinder to Rogosa’s commentary on “A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science.”. Measurement 3, 116–119 (2005).
  3. WW Wei, Time series analysis. The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods in Psychology (Oxford Univ Press, Oxford) Vol 2 (2006).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 1,002

Metadata

Authors
Fisher, A. J., Medaglia, J. D., & Jeronimus, B. F.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Drexel University (US)
  • University of Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Fisher, Aaron J.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2018-06-18
Volume
115
Issue
27
Pages
E6106-E6115
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2808831456
Cited by
1,099
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 126 · 2025: 159 · 2024: 132 · 2023: 141 · 2022: 139 · 2021: 137 · 2020: 135 · 2019: 106 · 2018: 21
FWCI
82.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
HHS | NIH | National Institute of Mental Health (1-DP5- OD021352)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
within-person variability, interindividual variability, aggregation bias, individual differences
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Bipolar Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Psychotherapy, Group

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