Cited by 139Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods and Applications

Pseudoreplication Revisited

Open access
Heffner, Robert A., Butler, Mark J., Reilly, Colleen Keelan·1996·Ecology

Abstract

during 1960-1980 for evidence of pseudoreplication (Hurlbert 1984).Pseudoreplication is defined by Hurlbert (1984: 18) as

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 · 10.2307/2265754

Cites

9 of 9 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?

  • Pseudoreplication has been addressed repeatedly in ecology, agriculture, psychology, and neuroscience and acknowledged as one of the most common statistical mistakes in scientific literature.

    “Pseudoreplication has been addressed repeatedly in ecology, agriculture, psychology, and neuroscience and acknowledged as one of the most common statistical mistakes in scientific literature4–9.”

    From A practical solution to pseudoreplication bias in single-cell studies (2021) · cites this paper as [5]

    The Results (page not provided) report pseudoreplication in about one in eight ecological field experiments reviewed, and the passage labeled Abstract describes extensive discussion of the problem among ecologists. The paper does not establish its frequency in agriculture, psychology, or neuroscience, or rank it among the most common statistical mistakes across scientific literature. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Applying statistical inference to replicates that are not statistically independent without properly accounting for their correlation structure will inflate type 1 error rates and lead to spurious results.

    “Here we hope to address pseudoreplication in single-cell analyses by demonstrating what a large and long-standing body of statistical literature already confirms: applying statistical inference to replicates that are not statistically independent without properly accounting for their correlation structure will inflate type 1 error rates and lead to spurious results4–6,9,25–28.”

    From A practical solution to pseudoreplication bias in single-cell studies (2021) · cites this paper as [5]

    The paper defines pseudoreplication to include applying inferential statistics when experimental units are not statistically independent. It says improper replication usually underestimates or confounds variation, increasing the risk of a Type I error, and that conclusions may be limited or invalid. The claim’s categorical “will inflate” and “lead to” are stronger than the paper’s qualified wording. The supplied passages are labeled Abstract; page numbers are unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Crowley, P. H. 1992. Resampling methods for computation- intensive data analyses in ecology and evolution. Annual Review Ecology and Systematics 23:405-447.
  2. Hurlbert, S. H., and M. D. White. 1993. Experiments with freshwater invertebrate zooplanktivores: quality of statis- tical analysis. Bulletin of Marine Science 53:128-153.
  3. Innis, G. S. 1979. Letter to the editor. Bulletin of the Eco- logical Society of America 60:142.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heffner, R. A., Butler, M. J., & Reilly, C. K.
Venue
Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1996-12
Volume
77
Issue
8
Pages
2558-2562
ISSN
  • 0012-9658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-9170
OpenAlex
W4240529425
Cited by
139
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • ODU Digital Commons (Old Dominion University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
Keywords
pseudoreplication, statistical inference, repeated measures, sample size, statistical power, ecological data analysis

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