The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Reviewer's Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences
Abstract
The Reviewer’s Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences is designed for evaluators of research manuscripts and proposals in the social and behavioral sciences, and beyond. Its thirty-one uniquely structured chapters cover both traditional and emerging methods of quantitative data analysis, which neither junior nor veteran reviewers can be expected to know in detail. The book updates readers on each technique’s key principles, appropriate usage, underlying assumptions, and limitations. It thereby assists reviewers to offer constructive commentary on works they evaluate, and also serves as an indispensable author’s reference for preparing sound research manuscripts and proposals. Key features include: The chapters cover virtually all of the popular classic and emerging quantitative techniques, thus helping reviewers to evaluate a manuscript’s methodological approach and its data analysis. In addition, the volume serves as an indispensable reference tool for those designing their own research. For ease of use, all chapters follow the same structure: the opening page of each chapter defines and explains the purpose of that statistical method the next one or two pages provide a table listing various criteria that should be considered when evaluating and applying that methodological approach to data analysis the remainder of each chapter contains numbered sections corresponding to the numbered criteria listed in the opening table. Each section explains the role and importance of that particular criterion. Chapters are written by methodological and applied scholars who are expert in the particular quantitative method being reviewed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Each TAQ item was checked to see if it was normally distributed. According to the guideline, if the skewness was ≤2.0 and the kurtosis was ≤7.0, the item can be regarded as a normal distribution [25].”
From Validation of the Tinnitus Acceptance Questionnaire: Japanese Version (2022) · cites this paper as [25]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología
Ato, M., López-García, J. J., & Benavente, A. (2013) · Anales de Psicología · doi:10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511 · Cited by 2,254
El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada
Lloret-Segura, S., Traver, A. F., Hernández, A., & Tomás-Marco, I. (2014) · Anales de Psicología · doi:10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361 · Cited by 2,164
Understanding the Model Size Effect on SEM Fit Indices
Shi, D., Lee, T., & Maydeu‐Olivares, A. (2018) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/0013164418783530 · Cited by 1,061
The Problem with Having Two Watches: Assessment of Fit When RMSEA and CFI Disagree
Lai, K., & Green, S. B. (2016) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2015.1134306 · Cited by 514
“Mueller and Hancock (2010) also noted that inconsistent fit indices can occur and advised not to simply dismiss a bad-looking index when inconsistency occurs, but to take into account the various indices when interpreting the results.”
BackgroundCantele, S., & Zardini, A. (2018) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.016 · Cited by 509
Metadata
- Authors
- Hancock, G. R., Mueller, R. O., Stapleton, L. M., & Mueller, R. O.
- Venue
- Routledge eBooks
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2010-04-26
- OpenAlex
- W4214816511
- Cited by
- 942
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 74 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 96 · 2018: 74 · 2017: 74 · 2016: 86 · 2015: 57 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 28.10
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Diverse Academic Research Areas
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- quantitative methods, peer review, manuscript review, research proposals, statistical analysis, methodological assumptions, methodological limitations, research design, social sciences, behavioral science
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