ranks PSYCHOLOGY & AGING
as #81 of all psychology journals with an SJR-Impact-Factor
of 1.8 in 2014. At present, the replicability-report is based on articles published from 2000 to 2015. During this time, PSYCHOLOGY & AGING published 1334 articles. The replicability-report is based on 1017 articles that reported one or more t or F-test in the text of the results section (results reported in Figures or Tables are not included). The test-statistic was converted into z-scores to estimate post-hoc-power
. The analysis is based on 7,390 z-scores in the range from 2 (just above the 1.96 criterion value for p < .05 (two-tailed)) to 4.
Based on the distribution of z-scores in the range between 2 and 4, the average power for significant results in this range is estimated to be 68% with the homogeneous model that is currently being used for the replicability rankings. The heterogeneous model fits the actual data better and produces an estimate of 61% power in this range. Power for all significant results is estimated to be 74%. A power estimate of 68% implies that 68% of the published significant results in this range are predicted to produce a significant results in an exact replication study with the same sample size and power (results with z > 4 are expected to replicate with nearly 100%).
The same method was used to estimate power for individual years.
The time trend shows a slight decline in power over time. Due to the large number of observations in each year, annual averages are close to the trend line, indicating that annual estimates are fairly precise. The average for the years 2010-2014 is 68%, which places Psychology and Aging above average in the replicabilty rankings of psychological journals. However, in the past three years power was below the historic average, indicating that the journal has not yet responded to the replicability crisis in psychology. Psychology and Aging should aim to increase power in the future.