Search for: All records

A common challenge in developmental research is the amount of incomplete and missing data that occurs from respondents failing to complete tasks or questionnaires, as well as from disengaging from the study (i.e., attrition). This missingness can lead to biases in parameter estimates and, hence, in the interpretation of findings. These biases can be addressed through statistical techniques that adjust for missing data, such as multiple imputation. Although multiple imputation is highly effective, it has not been widely adopted by developmental scientists given barriers such as lack of training or misconceptions about imputation methods. Utilizing default methods within statistical software programs like listwise deletion is common but may introduce additional bias. This manuscript is intended to provide practical guidelines for developmental researchers to follow when examining their data for missingness, making decisions about how to handle that missingness and reporting the extent of missing data biases and specific multiple imputation procedures in publications. 

Abstract Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors:www.dpjedi.org) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing (www.dpjedi.org/resources). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide:https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx).