Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be?
Top Cited Papers
- 1 December 2008
- journal article
- review article
- Published by American Psychological Association (APA) in American Psychologist
- Vol. 63 (9) , 839-851
- https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.63.9.839
Abstract
In anticipation of the impending revision of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, APA's Publications and Communications Board formed the Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) and charged it to provide the board with background and recommendations on information that should be included in manuscripts submitted to APA journals that report (a) new data collections and (b) meta-analyses. The JARS Group reviewed efforts in related fields to develop standards and sought input from other knowledgeable groups. The resulting recommendations contain (a) standards for all journal articles, (b) more specific standards for reports of studies with experimental manipulations or evaluations of interventions using research designs involving random or nonrandom assignment, and (c) standards for articles reporting meta-analyses. The JARS Group anticipated that standards for reporting other research designs (e.g., observational studies, longitudinal studies) would emerge over time. This report also (a) examines societal developments that have encouraged researchers to provide more details when reporting their studies, (b) notes important differences between requirements, standards, and recommendations for reporting, and (c) examines benefits and obstacles to the development and implementation of reporting standards.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA StatementJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2009
- Evidence-based practice in psychology.American Psychologist, 2006
- Improving the Reporting Quality of Nonrandomized Evaluations of Behavioral and Public Health Interventions: The TREND StatementAmerican Journal of Public Health, 2004
- Evidence-based behavioral medicine: What is it and how do we achieve it?Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 2003
- The CONSORT Statement: Revised Recommendations for Improving the Quality of Reports of Parallel-Group Randomized TrialsAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2001
- Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in EpidemiologyA Proposal for ReportingJAMA, 2000
- Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statementThe Lancet, 1999
- Coming to Terms With the Terms of RiskArchives of General Psychiatry, 1997
- Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn'tBMJ, 1996
- Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the potsdam consultation on meta-analysisJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995