Browsing by Subject "PREFERENCE"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    A Collaborative Approach to Infant Research: Promoting Reproducibility, Best Practices, and Theory-Building.
    (Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies, 2017-07) Frank, Michael C; Bergelson, Elika; Bergmann, Christina; Cristia, Alejandrina; Floccia, Caroline; Gervain, Judit; Hamlin, J Kiley; Hannon, Erin E; Kline, Melissa; Levelt, Claartje; Lew-Williams, Casey; Nazzi, Thierry; Panneton, Robin; Rabagliati, Hugh; Soderstrom, Melanie; Sullivan, Jessica; Waxman, Sandra; Yurovsky, Daniel
    The ideal of scientific progress is that we accumulate measurements and integrate these into theory, but recent discussion of replicability issues has cast doubt on whether psychological research conforms to this model. Developmental research-especially with infant participants-also has discipline-specific replicability challenges, including small samples and limited measurement methods. Inspired by collaborative replication efforts in cognitive and social psychology, we describe a proposal for assessing and promoting replicability in infancy research: large-scale, multi-laboratory replication efforts aiming for a more precise understanding of key developmental phenomena. The ManyBabies project, our instantiation of this proposal, will not only help us estimate how robust and replicable these phenomena are, but also gain new theoretical insights into how they vary across ages, linguistic communities, and measurement methods. This project has the potential for a variety of positive outcomes, including less-biased estimates of theoretically important effects, estimates of variability that can be used for later study planning, and a series of best-practices blueprints for future infancy research.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Estimating willingness to pay: Do health and environmental researchers have different methodological standards?
    (Applied Economics, 2013-06-01) Özdemir, S; Johnson, FR
    Health and environmental economists have been employing Stated-Preference (SP) methods such as conjoint analysis or contingent valuation to estimate the monetary value of public health interventions and environmental goods and services. However, the quality of data and the validity of results are sensitive to a number of decisions researchers make. The aim of this study is to compare the degree of the current consensus among active researchers in the rapidly evolving area of SP methods in health and environmental valuation. We surveyed researchers who have published manuscripts on SP methods in the last 10 years. Researchers were presented with hypothetical SP studies with different attributes. They were first asked which study they would recommend to use to inform policy decisions, and then asked which study has better-quality. Our results show that good-practice SP methods vary among study features and among researchers with different amounts and kinds of research experience. Although health researchers had specific preferences on which study features were better, their quality judgements were not very consistent with their judgements about the acceptability of studies for policy analysis. On the other hand, environmental researchers had similar preferences over the study attributes for the two types of questions. © 2012 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.