Cited by 101Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and BibliometricsAcademic integrity and plagiarism

Outlier Removal and the Relation with Reporting Errors and Quality of Psychological Research

Open access
Bakker, Marjan, Wicherts, Jelte M.·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The removal of outliers to acquire a significant result is a questionable research practice that appears to be commonly used in psychology. In this study, we investigated whether the removal of outliers in psychology papers is related to weaker evidence (against the null hypothesis of no effect), a higher prevalence of reporting errors, and smaller sample sizes in these papers compared to papers in the same journals that did not report the exclusion of outliers from the analyses. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We retrieved a total of 2667 statistical results of null hypothesis significance tests from 153 articles in main psychology journals, and compared results from articles in which outliers were removed (N = 92) with results from articles that reported no exclusion of outliers (N = 61). We preregistered our hypotheses and methods and analyzed the data at the level of articles. Results show no significant difference between the two types of articles in median p value, sample sizes, or prevalence of all reporting errors, large reporting errors, and reporting errors that concerned the statistical significance. However, we did find a discrepancy between the reported degrees of freedom of t tests and the reported sample size in 41% of articles that did not report removal of any data values. This suggests common failure to report data exclusions (or missingness) in psychological articles. CONCLUSIONS: We failed to find that the removal of outliers from the analysis in psychological articles was related to weaker evidence (against the null hypothesis of no effect), sample size, or the prevalence of errors. However, our control sample might be contaminated due to nondisclosure of excluded values in articles that did not report exclusion of outliers. Results therefore highlight the importance of more transparent reporting of statistical analyses.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0103360

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Many reported p-values do not match their accompanying test statistic and degrees of freedom.

    “However, there is evidence that many reported p-values do not match their accompanying test statistic and degrees of freedom (Bakker & Wicherts, 2011; Bakker & Wicherts, 2014; Berle & Starcevic, 2007; Caperos & Pardo, 2013; Garcia-Berthou & Alcaraz, 2004; Veldkamp, Nuijten, Dominguez-Alvarez, Van Assen, & Wicherts, 2014; Wicherts, Bakker, & Molenaar, 2011).”

    From The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013) (2016) · cites this paper as Bakker & Wicherts, 2014

  • Bakker and Wicherts (2014) only included completely reported t and F values.

    “Bakker and Wicherts (2014) only included completely reported t and F values.”

    From The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013) (2016) · cites this paper as Bakker and Wicherts (2014)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [28]Molenaar D, Wicherts JM, Borsboom D (2005) Participant loss in psychological research and the problem of exclusion: A validity issue. [Bachelor's thesis]. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
  2. [30]Wicherts JM (2008) Expectancy bias, statistical blunders, and the importance of reanalysis. Invited talk at the 23 IOPS summer conference, June 19, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bakker, M., & Wicherts, J. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Tilburg University (NL)
Corresponding author
Bakker, Marjan
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-07-29
Volume
9
Issue
7
Pages
e103360
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2012571365
Cited by
101
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2
FWCI
7.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (016-125-385)
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 › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
Keywords
outlier removal, questionable research practices, error reporting, null hypothesis significance testing, sample size, research quality, psychology journals, data exclusion
MeSH terms
Humans, Psychology, Research

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