Assessing the evidentiary value of secondary data analyses: a commentary on Gangestad, Dinh, Grebe, Del Giudice, and Thompson (2019)

Benedict Christopher Jones, Urszula Maria Marcinkowska, Lisa Marie DeBruine

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

1 Citation (Scopus)
2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Secondary data analyses (analyses of open data from published studies) can play a critical role in hypothesis generation and in maximizing the contribution of collected data to the accumulation of scientific knowledge. However, assessing the evidentiary value of results from secondary data analyses is often challenging because analytical decisions can be biased by knowledge of the results of (and analytical choices made in) the original study and by unacknowledged exploratory analyses of open data sets (Scott & Kline, 2019; Weston, Ritchie, Rohrer, & Przybylski, 2018). Using the secondary data analyses reported by Gangestad et al. (2019) as a case study, we outline several approaches that, if implemented, would allow readers to assess the evidentiary value of results from secondary data analyses with greater confidence.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)531-532
Number of pages2
JournalEvolution and Human Behavior
Volume40
Issue number6
Early online date16 Aug 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 30 Nov 2019

Keywords

  • secondary data analyses
  • menstrual cycle
  • replication
  • confirmatory
  • exploratory

Cite this