Drug use is a time-consuming endeavour, particularly for opioids, whereby substantial time is required to seek out, prepare and consume drugs. This prioritization of drug use reduces the time that is available for substance-free alternatives that contribute positively to quality of life, such as socialization, education, employment, physical activity and self-care (Acuff et al., 2019). Given the time commitments, daily supervised treatment of opioid use disorder has poor adherence (Strang et al., 2020). As such, there is an interest in long-acting injectable medications, which can overcome these adherence issues (Saunders et al 2020). However, little is known about how patients on long-acting medications for opioid use disorder adapt to the increased free-time they have, and where this has downstream impacts on their well-being, quality of life and experience of stigma.
 
In the current study, Trøstheim and colleagues plan to conduct an observational investigation of >500 individuals from Norway with opioid use disorder who were receiving pharmacological treatment. Their primary hypothesis is that individuals with opioid use disorder will exhibit distinct time use profiles, which will be examined using latent profile analysis to identify time use patterns based on 17 measured time use variables e.g. ‘How many days in the past week have you done paid work, voluntary work, or community service’. Secondary analyses will test the associations between medication type, time use (based on the latent profile analysis), well-being, stigma and life-satisfaction. Findings from this study will provide a greater understanding of how long-acting medications for opioid use disorder impact free-time and quality of life.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review by two reviewers and the recommender. Following a response and revision, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).
 

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI-RR-friendly journals:
 

 

 
1. Acuff, S. F., Dennhardt, A. A., Correia, C. J., & Murphy, J. G. (2019). Measurement of substance-free reinforcement in addiction: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 70, 79-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.04.003

 

2. Saunders, E. C., Moore, S. K., Walsh, O., Metcalf, S. A., Budney, A. J., Scherer, E., & Marsch, L. A. (2020). Perceptions and preferences for long-acting injectable and implantable medications in comparison to short-acting medications for opioid use disorders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 111, 54-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2020.01.009

 

3. Strang, J., Volkow, N. D., Degenhardt, L., Hickman, M., Johnson, K., Koob, G. F., ... & Walsh, S. L. (2020). Opioid use disorder. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 6, 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-019-0137-5

 

4. Trøstheim, M., Leknes, S., Solli, K. K., Carlyle, M., Ernst, G., & Eikemo, M. (2024). The Importance of Long- and Short-Acting Pharmacological Treatment Options for Time Use and Quality of Life in Individuals with Opioid Use Disorder: An Observational, Cross-Sectional, Survey-Based Study. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/vbpjg

Traditional Likert-type items are commonly used but can elicit response bias. An alternative approach, the forced-choice question, required respondents to rank order all items. Forced-choice questions boast some advantages but required advanced item response theory analysis to generate scores which are comparable across individuals and to evaluate the properties of those scales. However, there has been limited discussion of how to test differential item functioning (DIF) in these scales. In a previous study, Lee et al. (2021) proposed a method for testing DIF.

 

Here, Plantz et al. (2024) explore the implications of incorrect specification of anchors in DIF detection for forced choice items. The study proposes to use a Monte Carlo simulation which manipulates sample size, equality of sample size across groups, effect size, percentage of differentially functioning items, analysis approach, anchor set size, and percent of DIF blocks in the anchor set. This study aims to answer research questions about the type I error and power of DIF detection strategies under a variety of circumstances, both evaluating whether the results from Lee et al. (2021) generalize to misspecified models and expanding to evaluate new research questions. Results of this study will provide practical implications for DIF testing with forced-choice questions. An important limitation of the study is that it does not explore non-uniform DIF, only uniform DIF. Additionally, as with all simulation studies not all results can only apply to conditions which are simulated and so rely on the realistic selection of simulation conditions. The authors have selected conditions to match reality in circumstances where data is available, but relied on previous simulations in cases when data is not available. 

 

This Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of review by two reviewers with expertise in psychometrics. An additional round of review was completed by the recommender only. Based on the merits of the original submission and responsiveness of the authors to requests from the reviewers, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance (IPA).​

 

URL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/p8awx
 
Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 

1. Lee, P., Joo, S.-H. & Stark, S. (2021). Detecting DIF in multidimensional forced choice measures using the Thurstonian Item Response Theory Model. Organizational Research Methods, 24, 739–771. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120959822

 

2. Plantz, J. W.,  Brown, A., Wright, K. & Flake, J. K. (2024). Detecting DIF in Forced-Choice Assessments: A Simulation Study Examining the Effect of Model Misspecification. In principle acceptance of Version 3 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/p8awx

What relationship can be expected between secularization, rationalisation and insecurity? While some authors argue that rationalisation reduces the willingness to belong to religious groups, others have suggested that insecurity increases this need to belong to religious groups.

 

In the current study, Lang and Chvaja (2024) will adjudicate between these two possibilities using an economics game in participants from two countries: US and Poland. The central question posed by the authors is whether cooperative insecurity increases the probability of joining a religious normative group. They will test the relationship between an environment (secure and insecure) and institution (which related to the norm context: religious and secular) on the probability of choosing the normative group in an experimental setting. Therefore, the study will be a quantitative analysis.

 

The authors included an adequate power analysis, alternatives for non-supported hypotheses, and filtering to ensure a high quality of data collection. They also undertook a pilot study to ensure the quality of the procedure and sensitivity of the analyses.

 

The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over one round of in-depth review. Based on ​detailed responses to reviewers’ and the recommender’s comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 1 criteria and therefore awarded in-principle acceptance.​​​

 

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that will be used to answer the research question yet exists and no part will be generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 
References
 
1.Lang, M. & Chvaja, R. (2024). Mechanisms of secularization: Testing between the rationalization and existential insecurity theories. In principle acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/yzgek

​

What relationship can be expected between secularization, rationalization and insecurity? While some authors argue that rationalization reduces the willingness to belong to religious groups, others have suggested that insecurity increases this need to belong to religious groups.

 

In the current study, Lang and Chvaja (2024) adjudicated between these two possibilities using an economics game with 811 participants from two countries: US and Poland. The central question posed by the authors is whether cooperative insecurity increases the probability of joining a religious normative group. They tested the relationship between an environment (secure and insecure) and institution (which related to the norm context: religious and secular) on the probability of choosing the normative group in an experimental setting.

 

The authors included an adequate power analysis, alternatives for non-supported hypotheses, and filtering to ensure a high quality of data collection. They also undertook a pilot study to ensure the quality of the procedure and sensitivity of the analyses. There were only a few, minor, and well documented deviations from stage 1.

 

For the non-religious group, secularity increased the odds of joining the normative group when faced with insecurity. For the religious group, the results were mixed, mostly due to the unexpected high rate of participants joining the religious group in the secure environment. The researchers then pooled the regular and reversed scenarii and found support for the existential insecurity theory.

 

The authors concluded that both theories (the rationalization theory and the existential insecurity theory) can be at work, as the majority of the sample did not choose the religious normative group due to a potential rationalization, but they do slightly more when faced with (existential) insecurity.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of review. Based on ​detailed responses to reviewers’ and the recommender’s comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and therefore awarded a positive recommendation.

 

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA.
 
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:

 

 
References
 
1.Lang, M. & Chvaja, R. (2024). Mechanisms of secularization: Testing between the rationalization and existential insecurity theories [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 2 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gy7sj

​

This study seeks to understand cultural and age differences in the effort moralization effect, a phenomenon in which people who put more effort into a task are considered more moral, regardless of the quality or the morality associated with the task. This is shown in common phrases such as the “great resignation” or “quiet quitting”, which are mostly used against younger members of the population, in particular generation Z.

 

Tissot and Roth (2025) conducted a replication of a study from Celniker et al. (2023) which found evidence for this effect, with new samples from Mexico and Germany, to test potential cultural and age differences. 

The results indicated a generalization of the effort moralization effect in Germany and Mexico, with important heterogeneity in the effect found, and effects sizes that were smaller than in the original study conducted in the USA. However, no effect was found regarding age, as younger individuals judged effort as being important in the same way as older individuals. It is possible, therefore, that the effort moralization effect is a consistent bias that persists regardless of age.

 

The Stage 2 manuscript was evaluated over three rounds of in-depth review. Based on ​detailed responses to the reviewers’ and recommender’s comments, the recommender judged that the manuscript met the Stage 2 criteria and awarded a positive recommendation.

 

 

Level of bias control achieved: Level 6. No part of the data or evidence that was used to answer the research question was generated until after IPA.

 

List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
 

 
References

 

1. Celniker, J. B., Gregory, A., Koo, H. J., Piff, P. K., Ditto, P. H., & Shariff, A. F. (2023). The moralization of effort. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152, 60–79. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001259

 

2. Tissot, T. T. & Roth, L. H. O. (2025). Is it Worth the Hustle? A Multi-Country Replication of the Effort Moralization Effect and an Extension to Generational Differences in the Appreciation of Effort [Stage 2]. Acceptance of Version 6 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/ck4st_v6