PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

Title *

Evaluating the pedagogical effectiveness of study preregistration in the undergraduate dissertation: A Registered Report use asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Madeleine Pownall; Charlotte R. Pennington; Emma Norris; Kait Clark Please use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2021

Picture

Abstract *

<p style="text-align: justify;">Research shows that questionable research practices (QRPs) are present in undergraduate final-year dissertation projects. One entry-level Open Science practice proposed to mitigate QRPs is ‘study preregistration’, through which researchers outline their research questions, design, method and analysis plans prior to data collection and/or analysis. To date, no research to our knowledge has examined the effectiveness of preregistration on undergraduate students’ learning and perceptions of research practices, despite recent recommendations that preregistration could facilitate engagement and reduce anxiety with the dissertation process. In this study, we aim to empirically test the effectiveness of preregistration as a pedagogic tool in undergraduate dissertations using a quasi-experimental design. A total of 200 UK psychology students will be recruited and classified into two groups: those who preregister their empirical quantitative dissertation (n = 100; experimental group) and those who do not (n = 100; control group). Attitudes towards statistics and QRPs and understanding of Open Science practices will be measured both pre- and post-dissertation. Exploratory measures include participant’s capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B) to engage with preregistration, measured at Time 1 only. In line with/contrary to hypotheses, study preregistration [significantly/did not significantly increased/reduced] positive attitudes towards statistics, acceptance of QRPs, and perceived understanding of Open Science. Exploratory analyses indicate that preregistration was associated with [greater/less/no difference] capability, opportunity and motivation and qualitative responses revealed that preregistration [XXX]. These results contribute to timely discussions surrounding the utility of embedding Open Science principles into research training.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

Preregistration, open science, reproducibility, undergraduate training, dissertations; research training

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Life Sciences, Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2021-07-08 15:27:24

Recommender

Corina Logan

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report

Announcements

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY