The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Customer-Centric Science: Reporting Significant Research Results With Rigor, Relevance, and Practical Impact in Mind
Abstract
In response to the ongoing concern regarding a science-practice gap, we propose a customer-centric approach to reporting significant research results that involves a sequence of three interdependent steps. The first step involves setting an alpha level (i.e., a priori Type I error rate) that considers the relative seriousness of falsely rejecting a null hypothesis of no effect or relationship (i.e., Type I error) relative to not detecting an existing effect or relationship (i.e., Type II error) and reporting the actual observed p value (i.e., probability that the data would be obtained if the null hypothesis is true). The second step involves reporting estimates of the size of the effect or relationship, which indicate the extent to which an outcome is explained or predicted. The third step includes reporting results of a qualitative study to gather evidence regarding the practical significance of the effect or relationship. Our proposal to report research results with rigor, relevance, and practical impact involves important changes in how we report research results with the goal to bridge the science-practice gap.
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.
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
Cohen, J. (1994) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.49.12.997 · Cited by 4,003
The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review.
Cohen, J. (1962) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0045186 · Cited by 1,824
Things I have learned (so far).
Cohen, J. (1990) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.45.12.1304 · Cited by 1,781
Practical significance: a concept whose time has come
Kirk, R. E. (1996) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164496056005002 · Cited by 1,778 · cited 4×
“In the remainder of the article, we refer to this as the estimated effect magnitude (cf. Kirk, 1996).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCohen, J. (1983) · Applied Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/014662168300700301 · Cited by 1,564 · cited 1×
“The problem with this practice is that valuable information is lost (Cohen, 1983).”
BackgroundInterpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients.
Hemphill, J. F. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.1.78 · Cited by 1,237
Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. (2005) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.94 · Cited by 1,216
Self-citationDo studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies?
Sedlmeier, P., & Gigerenzer, G. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.2.309 · Cited by 748
Cautionary note on reporting eta-squared values from multifactor ANOVA designs.
Pierce, C. A., Block, R. A., & Aguinis, H. (2004) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164404264848 · Cited by 584 · cited 1×
“For sources of formulae and computation details of each of these effect magnitude estimates, please see Kirk (1996); Pierce, Block, and Aguinis (2004); Snyder and Lawson (1993); and Vacha-Haase and Thompson (2004). be classified into two types as follows: (a) group difference estimates and (b)…”
MethodSelf-citationThompson, B. (2002) · Journal of Counseling & Development · doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2002.tb00167.x · Cited by 398
Cited by
Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2013) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428112470848 · Cited by 1,341
Self-citationQualitative research: deductive and inductive approaches to data analysis
Azungah, T. (2018) · Qualitative Research Journal · doi:10.1108/qrj-d-18-00035 · Cited by 1,262
Why employees do bad things: Moral disengagement and unethical organizational behavior
MOORE, C., DETERT, J. R., KLEBE TREVIÑO, L., BAKER, V. L., & MAYER, D. M. (2012) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01237.x · Cited by 1,159
The Too-Much-of-a-Good-Thing Effect in Management
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206311410060 · Cited by 1,085
Self-citationRelative Importance Analysis: A Useful Supplement to Regression Analysis
Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2011) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9204-3 · Cited by 953
Metadata
- Authors
- Aguinis, H., Werner, S., Lanza Abbott, J., Angert, C., Park, J. H., & Kohlhausen, D.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-08-20
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 515-539
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W2095745678
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 13.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Customer-Centric Science: Reporting Significant Research Results With Rigor, Relevance, and Practical Impact in Mind. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1094428109333339
- The paper
- Aguinis, H., Werner, S., Lanza Abbott, J., Angert, C., Park, J. H., & Kohlhausen, D. (2010). Customer-Centric Science: Reporting Significant Research Results With Rigor, Relevance, and Practical Impact in Mind. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109333339
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
