PENNINGTON Charlotte
- School of Psychology, Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- Social sciences
- recommender
Recommendations: 2
Reviews: 3
Recommendations: 2
Ontological Diversity in Gaming Disorder Measurement: A Nationally Representative Registered Report
Different ontologies, different constructs? Instruments for gaming-related health problems identify different groups of people and measure different problems
Recommended by Charlotte Pennington based on reviews by Daniel Dunleavy and David Ellis- Addiction Research & Theory
- F1000Research
- Peer Community Journal
- PeerJ
- Royal Society Open Science
- Swiss Psychology Open
- WiderScreen

Identifying Gaming Disorders by Ontology: A Nationally Representative Registered Report
Do different screening instruments for ‘gaming disorder’ measure the same or different construct(s)?
Recommended by Charlotte Pennington based on reviews by Daniel Dunleavy, Linda Kaye, David Ellis and 1 anonymous reviewerThere is considerable debate regarding the relationship between excessive gaming and mental health problems. Whilst the diagnostic classification of “gaming disorder” has now been included in the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), the APA decided not to include this diagnosis in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) because the literature “suffers from a lack of a standard definition from which to derive prevalence data” (APA 2013, p. 796). Furthermore, screening instruments that aim to provide diagnostic classifications derive from different ontologies and it is not known whether they identify equivalent prevalence rates of ‘gaming disorder’ or even the same individuals.
In this Stage 1 Registered Report, Karhulahti et al. (2022) aim to assess how screening instruments that derive from different ontologies differ in identifying associated problem groups. A nationally representative sample of 8000 Finnish individuals will complete four screening measures to assess the degree of overlap between identified prevalence (how many?), who they identify (what characteristics?) and the health of their identified groups (how healthy?). If these four ontologically diverse instruments operate similarly, this will support the notion of a single “gaming disorder” construct. If, however, the instruments operate differently, this will suggest that efforts should be directed toward assessing the clinical (ir)relevance of multiple constructs. This rigorous study will therefore have important implications for the conceptualisation and measurement of “gaming disorder”, contributing to the debate around the mixed findings of gaming-related health problems.
Four expert reviewers with field expertise assessed the Stage 1 manuscript over three rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed and informed responses to the reviewers' comments, the recommender decided 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/usj5b
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:
- Addiction Research & Theory
- F1000Research
- Peer Community Journal
- PeerJ
- Royal Society Open Science
- Swiss Psychology Open
References
- APA (American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Edition). APA.
- Karhulahti V-M, Vahlo J, Martončik M, Munukka M, Koskimaa R and Bonsdorff M (2022). Identifying Gaming Disorders by Ontology: A Nationally Representative Registered Report. OSF mpz9q, Stage 1 preregistration, in principle acceptance of version 4 by Peer Community in Registered Reports. https://osf.io/mpz9q/
Reviews: 3
Does alleviating poverty increase cognitive performance? Short- and long-term evidence from a randomized controlled trial
No strong effect of unconditional cash transfers on cognition
Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Charlotte Pennington and Matúš Adamkovič
Revisiting stigma attributions and reactions to stigma: Replication and extensions of Weiner et al. (1988)
Understanding the psychology of stigmas
Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Charlotte Pennington and Joanne RathboneURL to the preregistered Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/k957f
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
- Experimental Psychology
- F1000Research
- Meta-Psychology
- Peer Community Journal
- PeerJ
- Royal Society Open Science
- Swiss Psychology Open

Does alleviating poverty increase cognitive performance? Short- and long- term evidence from a randomized controlled trial
Understanding the effect of unconditional cash transfers on cognition
Recommended by Chris Chambers based on reviews by Charlotte Pennington and Matúš AdamkovičOver the last decade, a growing body of evidence has revealed potential benefits of unconditional cash transfers (UCTs) on a variety of outcomes, including self-reported happiness and life satisfaction (Haushofer & Shapiro, 2016), economic and financial well-being (Blattman et al., 2013; Baird et al., 2018) and educational attainment (Baird et al., 2016). Although the effects of UCTs do not always out-perform rigorous control conditions (Whillans & West, 2022), these findings prompt the question of whether the alleviation of poverty via UCTs can also influence cognitive processing and performance.
In the current study, Szaszi et al. propose to analyse the results of a previous randomised trial of UCTs by Blattman et al. (2017) to test whether a $200 lump sum administered to a sample of young men in Liberia carries both short- and long-term benefits for a range of executive functions, including attention, response inhibition, and working memory capacity.
The Stage 1 manuscript was evaluated over two rounds of in-depth review. Based on detailed responses to the reviewers' comments, 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/k56yv
Level of bias control achieved: Level 2. At least some data/evidence that will be used to answer the research question has been accessed and partially observed by the authors, but the authors certify that they have not yet observed the key variables within the data that will be used to answer the research question AND they have taken additional steps to maximise bias control and rigour.
List of eligible PCI RR-friendly journals:
References