Stage 2 Registered Report: Restriction of researcher degrees of freedom through the Psychological Research Preregistration-Quantitative (PRP-QUANT) Template
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [What does this mean?].
Author(s) / Creator(s)
Spitzer, Lisa
Kroeger, Amelie
Mueller, Stefanie
Abstract / Description
Preregistration can help to restrict researcher degrees of freedom and thereby ensure the integrity of research findings. However, its ability to restrict such flexibility depends on whether researchers specify their study plan in sufficient detail and adhere to this plan. Previous research indicates higher restrictiveness when preregistrations are based on structured versus unstructured template formats, although there is room for further improvement. This study built on these findings and investigated the restrictiveness of preregistrations based on the PRP-QUANT Template, an extensive template that aids the preregistration of quantitative studies in psychology. Preregistrations were sampled from PsychArchives and coded for their level of restrictiveness using the coding scheme of Bakker et al. (2020) and Heirene et al. (2024). We predicted that preregistrations based on the PRP-QUANT Template (N = 103) are more restrictive than preregistrations based on the OSF Preregistration Template (N = 52, Bakker et al., 2020, hypothesis 1). We also inspected whether peer review can contribute further to restricting flexibility and predicted higher restrictiveness for peer-reviewed (n = 29) than non-peer-reviewed preregistrations (n = 74, hypothesis 2), using nested Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests. Additionally, we examined adherence to the preregistered plans in the associated publications (N = 19). In line with hypothesis 1, PRP-QUANT preregistrations had significantly higher restrictiveness scores than OSF Preregistrations. Moreover, consistent with hypothesis 2, peer-reviewed preregistrations had significantly higher restrictiveness than non-peer-reviewed ones. 73.68% of the associated articles included undeclared deviations. We discuss the implications of our findings for the PRP-QUANT Template and structured templates in general.
Keyword(s)
preregistration open science meta-research reproducibility replicabilityPersistent Identifier
Date of first publication
2025-03-07
Publisher
PsychArchives
Is version of
Citation
-
Stage 2 RR - Restriction of RDF Through the PRP-QUANT Template (tracked changes).pdfAdobe PDF - 3.32MBMD5: d6ba3ee5c9b294f39c1ebf45f203dc18Description: Manuscript with tracked changes in comparison to the Stage 1 RR
-
Stage 2 RR - Restriction of RDF Through the PRP-QUANT Template.pdfAdobe PDF - 2.21MBMD5: 62b5be51fc8210e1294f5f2e67e75287Description: Clean manuscript
-
There are no other versions of this object.
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Spitzer, Lisa
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Kroeger, Amelie
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Mueller, Stefanie
-
PsychArchives acquisition timestamp2025-03-07T16:39:29Z
-
Made available on2025-03-07T16:39:29Z
-
Date of first publication2025-03-07
-
Abstract / DescriptionPreregistration can help to restrict researcher degrees of freedom and thereby ensure the integrity of research findings. However, its ability to restrict such flexibility depends on whether researchers specify their study plan in sufficient detail and adhere to this plan. Previous research indicates higher restrictiveness when preregistrations are based on structured versus unstructured template formats, although there is room for further improvement. This study built on these findings and investigated the restrictiveness of preregistrations based on the PRP-QUANT Template, an extensive template that aids the preregistration of quantitative studies in psychology. Preregistrations were sampled from PsychArchives and coded for their level of restrictiveness using the coding scheme of Bakker et al. (2020) and Heirene et al. (2024). We predicted that preregistrations based on the PRP-QUANT Template (N = 103) are more restrictive than preregistrations based on the OSF Preregistration Template (N = 52, Bakker et al., 2020, hypothesis 1). We also inspected whether peer review can contribute further to restricting flexibility and predicted higher restrictiveness for peer-reviewed (n = 29) than non-peer-reviewed preregistrations (n = 74, hypothesis 2), using nested Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests. Additionally, we examined adherence to the preregistered plans in the associated publications (N = 19). In line with hypothesis 1, PRP-QUANT preregistrations had significantly higher restrictiveness scores than OSF Preregistrations. Moreover, consistent with hypothesis 2, peer-reviewed preregistrations had significantly higher restrictiveness than non-peer-reviewed ones. 73.68% of the associated articles included undeclared deviations. We discuss the implications of our findings for the PRP-QUANT Template and structured templates in general.en
-
Publication statusother
-
Review statusnotReviewed
-
Persistent Identifierhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/11578
-
Persistent Identifierhttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.16164
-
Language of contenteng
-
PublisherPsychArchives
-
Is version ofhttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.14119
-
Is related tohttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.16151
-
Is related tohttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.16152
-
Is related tohttps://www.psycharchives.org/handle/20.500.12034/11579
-
Is related tohttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.16153
-
Is related tohttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.14119
-
Keyword(s)preregistration
-
Keyword(s)open science
-
Keyword(s)meta-research
-
Keyword(s)reproducibility
-
Keyword(s)replicability
-
Dewey Decimal Classification number(s)150
-
TitleStage 2 Registered Report: Restriction of researcher degrees of freedom through the Psychological Research Preregistration-Quantitative (PRP-QUANT) Templateen
-
DRO typepreprint
-
Visible tag(s)Registered Report Stage 2 Manuscript