Search

Your search keyword '"Kellier, Danielle J."' showing total 2 results
Start Over Author "Kellier, Danielle J." Publisher escholarship, university of california
2 results on '"Kellier, Danielle J."'

1. Many Labs 5: Testing Pre-Data-Collection Peer Review as an Intervention to Increase Replicability

Author

Ebersole, Charles R, Mathur, Maya B, Baranski, Erica, Bart-Plange, Diane-Jo, Buttrick, Nicholas R, Chartier, Christopher R, Corker, Katherine S, Corley, Martin, Hartshorne, Joshua K, IJzerman, Hans, Lazarević, Ljiljana B, Rabagliati, Hugh, Ropovik, Ivan, Aczel, Balazs, Aeschbach, Lena F, Andrighetto, Luca, Arnal, Jack D, Arrow, Holly, Babincak, Peter, Bakos, Bence E, Baník, Gabriel, Baskin, Ernest, Belopavlović, Radomir, Bernstein, Michael H, Białek, Michał, Bloxsom, Nicholas G, Bodroža, Bojana, Bonfiglio, Diane BV, Boucher, Leanne, Brühlmann, Florian, Brumbaugh, Claudia C, Casini, Erica, Chen, Yiling, Chiorri, Carlo, Chopik, William J, Christ, Oliver, Ciunci, Antonia M, Claypool, Heather M, Coary, Sean, Čolić, Marija V, Collins, W Matthew, Curran, Paul G, Day, Chris R, Dering, Benjamin, Dreber, Anna, Edlund, John E, Falcão, Filipe, Fedor, Anna, Feinberg, Lily, Ferguson, Ian R, Ford, Máire, Frank, Michael C, Fryberger, Emily, Garinther, Alexander, Gawryluk, Katarzyna, Ashbaugh, Kayla, Giacomantonio, Mauro, Giessner, Steffen R, Grahe, Jon E, Guadagno, Rosanna E, Hałasa, Ewa, Hancock, Peter JB, Hilliard, Rias A, Hüffmeier, Joachim, Hughes, Sean, Idzikowska, Katarzyna, Inzlicht, Michael, Jern, Alan, Jiménez-Leal, William, Johannesson, Magnus, Joy-Gaba, Jennifer A, Kauff, Mathias, Kellier, Danielle J, Kessinger, Grecia, Kidwell, Mallory C, Kimbrough, Amanda M, King, Josiah PJ, Kolb, Vanessa S, Kołodziej, Sabina, Kovacs, Marton, Krasuska, Karolina, Kraus, Sue, Krueger, Lacy E, Kuchno, Katarzyna, Lage, Caio Ambrosio, Langford, Eleanor V, Levitan, Carmel A, de Lima, Tiago Jessé Souza, Lin, Hause, Lins, Samuel, Loy, Jia E, Manfredi, Dylan, Markiewicz, Łukasz, Menon, Madhavi, Mercier, Brett, Metzger, Mitchell, Meyet, Venus, Millen, Ailsa E, Miller, Jeremy K, and Montealegre, Andres

Subjects
Psychology, Cognitive and Computational Psychology, Applied and Developmental Psychology, Behavioral and Social Science, replication, reproducibility, metascience, peer review, Registered Reports, open data, preregistered, Applied and developmental psychology, Cognitive and computational psychology
Abstract

Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect (p

Published
2020

2. Quantifying Sources of Variability in Infancy Research Using the Infant-Directed-Speech Preference

Author

Frank, Michael C, Alcock, Katherine Jane, Arias-Trejo, Natalia, Aschersleben, Gisa, Baldwin, Dare, Barbu, Stephanie, Bergelson, Elika, Bergmann, Christina, Black, Alexis K, Blything, Ryan, Bohland, Maximilian P, Bolitho, Petra, Borovsky, Arielle, Brady, Shannon M, Braun, Bettina, Brown, Anna, Byers-Heinlein, Krista, Campbell, Linda E, Cashon, Cara, Choi, Mihye, Christodoulou, Joan, Cirelli, Laura K, Conte, Stefania, Cordes, Sara, Cox, Christopher, Cristia, Alejandrina, Cusack, Rhodri, Davies, Catherine, de Klerk, Maartje, Delle Luche, Claire, de Ruiter, Laura, Dinakar, Dhanya, Dixon, Kate C, Durier, Virginie, Durrant, Samantha, Fennell, Christopher, Ferguson, Brock, Ferry, Alissa, Fikkert, Paula, Flanagan, Teresa, Floccia, Caroline, Foley, Megan, Fritzsche, Tom, Frost, Rebecca LA, Gampe, Anja, Gervain, Judit, Gonzalez-Gomez, Nayeli, Gupta, Anna, Hahn, Laura E, Hamlin, J Kiley, Hannon, Erin E, Havron, Naomi, Hay, Jessica, Hernik, Mikolaj, Hohle, Barbara, Houston, Derek M, Howard, Lauren H, Ishikawa, Mitsuhiko, Itakura, Shoji, Jackson, Iain, Jakobsen, Krisztina V, Jarto, Marianna, Johnson, Scott P, Junge, Caroline, Karadag, Didar, Kartushina, Natalia, Kellier, Danielle J, Keren-Portnoy, Tamar, Klassen, Kelsey, Kline, Melissa, Ko, Eon-Suk, Kominsky, Jonathan F, Kosie, Jessica E, Kragness, Haley E, Krieger, Andrea AR, Krieger, Florian, Lany, Jill, Lazo, Roberto J, Lee, Michelle, Leservoisier, Chloe, Levelt, Claartje, Lew-Williams, Casey, Lippold, Matthias, Liszkowski, Ulf, Liu, Liquan, Luke, Steven G, Lundwall, Rebecca A, Cassia, Viola Macchi, Mani, Nivedita, Marino, Caterina, Martin, Alia, Mastroberardino, Meghan, Mateu, Victoria, Mayor, Julien, Menn, Katharina, Michel, Christine, Moriguchi, Yusuke, Morris, Benjamin, Nave, Karli M, and Nazzi, Thierry

Subjects
language acquisition, speech perception, infant-directed speech, reproducibility, experimental methods, open data, open materials, preregistered, Behavioral and Social Science, Basic Behavioral and Social Science, Pediatric, Clinical Research
Abstract

Psychological scientists have become increasingly concerned with issues related to methodology and replicability, and infancy researchers in particular face specific challenges related to replicability: For example, high-powered studies are difficult to conduct, testing conditions vary across labs, and different labs have access to different infant populations. Addressing these concerns, we report on a large-scale, multisite study aimed at (a) assessing the overall replicability of a single theoretically important phenomenon and (b) examining methodological, cultural, and developmental moderators. We focus on infants’ preference for infant-directed speech (IDS) over adult-directed speech (ADS). Stimuli of mothers speaking to their infants and to an adult in North American English were created using seminaturalistic laboratory-based audio recordings. Infants’ relative preference for IDS and ADS was assessed across 67 laboratories in North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia using the three common methods for measuring infants’ discrimination (head-turn preference, central fixation, and eye tracking). The overall meta-analytic effect size (Cohen’s d) was 0.35, 95% confidence interval = [0.29, 0.42], which was reliably above zero but smaller than the meta-analytic mean computed from previous literature (0.67). The IDS preference was significantly stronger in older children, in those children for whom the stimuli matched their native language and dialect, and in data from labs using the head-turn preference procedure. Together, these findings replicate the IDS preference but suggest that its magnitude is modulated by development, native-language experience, and testing procedure.

Published
2020

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results