Many psychologists try to measure things that are tough to measure — and many of those many do it iffily. The Reproducibility Project is trying to measure how iffy those measurements are. They published a study called “Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science,” about their progress.
Benedict Carey tells about this, in a New York Times article called “Many Psychology Findings Not as Strong as Claimed, Study Says.”
Ed Yong tells about it, in an Atlantic article called “How Reliable Are Psychology Studies?”
You might be able to tell something about it by skimming through titles and abstracts of studies published in Psychological Science.
Psychological Science is the top-of-the-line psychology research journal assembled by the top-of-the-line association of psychologists, the Association for Psychological Science (also known as the APS). An overlapping top-of-the-line association of psychologists, the APA, is known these days for the way some of its recent leaders relate to the activity that people other than those leaders call “torture”.
BONUS: Here’s how some (hard to say how much, but the Reproducibility Project might one day be able to say something) of the most iffy research can happen: “Science Isn’t Broken
It’s just a hell of a lot harder than we give it credit for“, by Christie Aschewanden, on the FiveThirtyEight web site.