Robbie C.M. van Aert
Robbie C.M. van Aert
Verified email at - Homepage
Cited by
Cited by
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
Open Science Collaboration
Science 349 (6251), aac4716, 2015
Comment on “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science”
DT Gilbert, G King, S Pettigrew, TD Wilson
Science 351 (6277), 1037-1037, 2016
Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science
JE Anderson, AA Aarts, CJ Anderson, PR Attridge, A Attwood, J Axt, ...
Science 349 (6251), 2015
Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: A checklist to avoid p-hacking
JM Wicherts, CLS Veldkamp, HEM Augusteijn, M Bakker, R Van Aert, ...
Frontiers in psychology 7, 1832, 2016
Many Labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings
RA Klein, M Vianello, F Hasselman, BG Adams, RB Adams Jr, S Alper, ...
Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 1 (4), 443-490, 2018
Meta-analysis using effect size distributions of only statistically significant studies.
MALM Van Assen, R van Aert, JM Wicherts
Psychological methods 20 (3), 293, 2015
Conducting Meta-Analyses Based on p Values: Reservations and Recommendations for Applying p-Uniform and p-Curve
RCM van Aert, JM Wicherts, MALM van Assen
Perspectives on Psychological Science 11 (5), 713-729, 2016
Why publishing everything is more effective than selective publishing of statistically significant results
MALM van Assen, RCM van Aert, MB Nuijten, JM Wicherts
PLoS one 9 (1), 2014
Distributions of p-values smaller than. 05 in psychology: what is going on?
CHJ Hartgerink, RCM van Aert, MB Nuijten, JM Wicherts, ...
PeerJ 4, e1935, 2016
Examining reproducibility in psychology: A hybrid method for combining a statistically significant original study and a replication
RCM Van Aert, MALM Van Assen
Behavior research methods 50 (4), 1515-1539, 2018
Bayesian evaluation of effect size after replicating an original study
RCM van Aert, MALM Van Assen
PloS one 12 (4), 2017
The effect of publication bias on the Q test and assessment of heterogeneity.
HEM Augusteijn, R van Aert, MALM van Assen
Psychological methods 24 (1), 116, 2019
Publication bias examined in meta-analyses from psychology and medicine: A meta-meta-analysis
RCM Van Aert, JM Wicherts, MALM Van Assen
PloS one 14 (4), 2019
Standard analyses fail to show that US studies overestimate effect sizes in softer research
MB Nuijten, MALM van Assen, RCM van Aert, JM Wicherts
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111 (7), E712-E713, 2014
puniform: Meta-analysis methods correcting for publication bias
RCM van Aert
R package version 0.0 3, 2017
Correcting for publication bias in a meta-analysis with the p-uniform* method
RCM van Aert, M van Assen
Manuscript submitted for publication Retrieved from: https://osfio/preprints …, 2018
Multistep estimators of the between‐study variance: The relationship with the Paule‐Mandel estimator
RCM van Aert, D Jackson
Statistics in medicine 37 (17), 2616-2629, 2018
Statistical properties of methods based on the Q‐statistic for constructing a confidence interval for the between‐study variance in meta‐analysis
RC Van Aert, MA Van Assen, W Viechtbauer
Research synthesis methods 10 (2), 225-239, 2019
Publication Bias in Meta-analyses from Psychology and Medicine: A Meta-meta-analysis
RCM van Aert, J Wicherts, MALM van Assen
MetaArXiv, 2017
Comparing confidence intervals for Goodman and Kruskal's gamma coefficient
LA van der Ark, RCM van Aert
Journal of Statistical Computation and Simulation 85 (12), 2491-2505, 2015
The system can't perform the operation now. Try again later.
Articles 1–20