Assessing Questionable and Responsible Research Practices in Psychology Master's Theses

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Research Methodology
• Academic Integrity

Background:

• Previous studies identified questionable and responsible research practices in published psychology literature.
• The engagement of psychology master's students in these practices remains under-documented.

Purpose of the Study:

• To document the prevalence of responsible and questionable research practices in master's theses.
• To examine the association between these practices and supervisor grading.
• To compare student practices with those in published manuscripts.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of 300 psychology master's theses from Tilburg University.
• Documentation of responsible research practices (e.g., power analyses, sample size) and questionable practices.
• Statistical reporting error assessment.
• Correlation analysis with thesis grades.

Main Results:

• Master's students demonstrated higher rates of responsible research practices compared to published authors, including more power analyses, larger sample sizes, and more detailed reporting.
• Fewer statistically significant results were reported by students.
• Statistical reporting errors were nearly as frequent in theses as in published literature.
• No significant relationship was found between thesis grades and research practices, nor among the practices themselves.

Conclusions:

• Psychology master's students generally adopt more responsible research practices than authors of published works.
• The absence of a link between thesis grades and research practices suggests grading does not incentivize or reflect methodological rigor.
• Statistical reporting errors persist as a significant issue in academic work.
• Responsible scientific behavior is not a single, unified construct.