Tisztelt Kollégák! Ezúton szeretném meghívni Önöket az MTA TTK Agyi Képalkotó Központ szervezésében megrendezésre kerülő következő előadásra, amelyet dr. Szűcs Dénes (Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, UK) fog tartani "Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature" címmel. Az előadás időpontja: 2016. október 21. (péntek) 15:00 óra Az előadás helyszíne: MTA TTK földszinti kis konferenciaterme (1117 Budapest, Magyar tudósok körútja 2.) Sok szeretettel várunk mindenkit, a meghívót nyugodtan továbbítsák minden potenciális érdeklődőnek. Részvételi szándékukat, kérem, jelezzék az a következő e-mail címen: weiss.bela(a)ttk.mta.hu Tisztelettel, Weiss Béla MTA TTK Agyi Képalkotó Központ Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature Denes Szucs*1, John PA Ioannidis2 1) Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, UK 2) Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) and Department of Medicine, Department of Health Research and Policy, and Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, USA * Correspondence: Denes Szucs; ds377(a)cam.ac.uk Abstract: We have empirically assessed the distribution of published effect sizes and estimated power by extracting more than 100,000 statistical records from about 10,000 cognitive neuroscience and psychology papers published during the past 5 years. The reported median effect size was d=0.93 (inter-quartile range: 0.64-1.46) for nominally statistically significant results and d=0.24 (0.11-0.42) for non-significant results. Median power to detect small, medium and large effects was 0.12, 0.44 and 0.73, reflecting no improvement through the past half-century. Power was lowest for cognitive neuroscience journals. 14% of papers reported some statistically significant results, although the respective F statistic and degrees of freedom proved that these were non-significant; p value errors positively correlated with journal impact factors. False report probability is likely to exceed 50% for the whole literature. In light of our findings the recently reported low replication success in psychology is realistic and worse performance may be expected for cognitive neuroscience.