TY - JOUR
T1 - Scientists’ perception of pilot study quality was influenced by statistical significance and study design
AU - von Klinggraeff, Lauren
AU - Burkart, Sarah
AU - Pfledderer, Christopher D.
AU - Saba Nishat, Md Nasim
AU - Armstrong, Bridget
AU - Weaver, R. Glenn
AU - McLain, Alexander C.
AU - Beets, Michael W.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Author(s)
PY - 2023/7
Y1 - 2023/7
N2 - Objectives: Preliminary studies play a key role in developing large-scale interventions but may be held to higher or lower scientific standards during the peer review process because of their preliminary study status. Study Design and Setting: Abstracts from 5 published obesity prevention preliminary studies were systematically modified to generate 16 variations of each abstract. Variations differed by 4 factors: sample size (n = 20 vs. n = 150), statistical significance (P < 0.05 vs. P > 0.05), study design (single group vs. randomized 2 groups), and preliminary study status (presence/absence of pilot language). Using an online survey, behavioral scientists were provided with a randomly selected variation of each of the 5 abstracts and blinded to the existence of other variations. Respondents rated each abstract on aspects of study quality. Results: Behavioral scientists (n = 271, 79.7% female, median age 34 years) completed 1,355 abstract ratings. Preliminary study status was not associated with perceived study quality. Statistically significant effects were rated as more scientifically significant, rigorous, innovative, clearly written, warranted further testing, and had more meaningful results. Randomized designs were rated as more rigorous, innovative, and meaningful. Conclusion: Findings suggest reviewers place a greater value on statistically significant findings and randomized control design and may overlook other important study characteristics.
AB - Objectives: Preliminary studies play a key role in developing large-scale interventions but may be held to higher or lower scientific standards during the peer review process because of their preliminary study status. Study Design and Setting: Abstracts from 5 published obesity prevention preliminary studies were systematically modified to generate 16 variations of each abstract. Variations differed by 4 factors: sample size (n = 20 vs. n = 150), statistical significance (P < 0.05 vs. P > 0.05), study design (single group vs. randomized 2 groups), and preliminary study status (presence/absence of pilot language). Using an online survey, behavioral scientists were provided with a randomly selected variation of each of the 5 abstracts and blinded to the existence of other variations. Respondents rated each abstract on aspects of study quality. Results: Behavioral scientists (n = 271, 79.7% female, median age 34 years) completed 1,355 abstract ratings. Preliminary study status was not associated with perceived study quality. Statistically significant effects were rated as more scientifically significant, rigorous, innovative, clearly written, warranted further testing, and had more meaningful results. Randomized designs were rated as more rigorous, innovative, and meaningful. Conclusion: Findings suggest reviewers place a greater value on statistically significant findings and randomized control design and may overlook other important study characteristics.
KW - Bias
KW - Data interpretation
KW - Evaluation studies
KW - Feasibility studies
KW - Peer review
KW - Pilot projects
KW - Research
KW - Statistical
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85163714831&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85163714831&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.05.011
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.05.011
M3 - Article
C2 - 37217107
AN - SCOPUS:85163714831
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 159
SP - 70
EP - 78
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -