��һ�Թ���

Dr. Jessica Flake is an Associate Professor of Quantitative Methods in the Department of Psychology at The University of British Columbia and an Adjunct Professor at McGill University. She received her PhD in Educational Psychology with a specialization in Measurement, Evaluation, and Assessment from the University of Connecticut. Her research focuses on psychometrics, measurement invariance, construct validation, and strengthening methodological rigor in psychological science. She is widely recognized for her work on questionable measurement practices, large-scale replication, and the development and evaluation of methods for multilevel modeling and structural equation modeling. Her scholarship has appeared in leading journals including Psychological Methods, American Psychologist, Nature Human Behaviour, Psychological Science, and Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Professor Flake has received numerous honors, including the Society of Multivariate Experimental Psychology Early Career Award and the APA Division 5 Anne Anastasi Distinguished Early Career Contributions Award. She previously served in editorial roles at Psychological Methods, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, and the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and she currently serves as a Statistics Transparency and Rigor Editor at Psychological Science. Across her research, teaching, and service, Professor Flake’s work advances the quality, transparency, and validity of measurement in the social and behavioral sciences.

Title: “Methodological Research Needs Methodological Reform Too”

Dr. Jessica Flake summarizes her upcoming talk:
“Psychology is in a period of methodological reform. Researchers are rethinking their practices, sharing their data, and trying out registered reports. In this open science era, my work has focused on the role of measurement practices. I’ll provide some background as to how that previous metascience and psychometric research in the context of replication studies led me to discover two related problems. First, even as registration becomes common, we lack practices to analysis plan for complex models and to ensure their transparent reporting and reproducibility. Second, current methodological research does not address this because it does not focus on how to navigate the garden of forking paths and quantify the uncertainty in results that comes from reasonable analytical flexibility. In fact, methodological research seeks to increase the size of the garden of forking paths! These problems prevent the uptake of open science practices and threaten the validity of research results. I’ll preview my on-going work to develop research synthesis methods for methodologies and ways of integrating multiverse analysis with metascience to quantify analytical uncertainty. I'll discuss how applied and meta researchers can consider decision making in analysis pipelines as a unique contributor to the uncertainty of results and ideas for correcting for it.”

The colloquium is worth 1.0 CEU for Psychologists.