When we measure personality multiple times in a study, does it matter if we ask people about their personality *in general* or *since the last time point*?

Turns out: yes!

We found differences in internal consistency, Ms, & SDs but not in the underlying constructs 🧵

doi.org/10.31234/osf...

Would love for OS movement to feel like a cool kids club **that you are very much welcome and invited to join and we would love to have you and we will celebrate your efforts and support each other as we strive to do the very tough work that good science requires**

Reasonable, nuanced, reward-focused, and appreciative of incremental changes. And not jerks. One takeaway from this dialogue for me: publicly praise the hell out of engagement in OS practices wherever I can (e.g, here, reviewing). That won’t yield field-wide paradigm shift, but small effects matter.

Sympathetic to your core point, Josh, but will take issue w/the notion of “THE tone” of OS discourse. As in all change movements, ofc there are salient meanies who confront + belittle in the name of speaking harsh truths. And, most OS folks in my orbit (i.e., outside social media) are…

Apropos of recent open science conversations - this paper is an awesome primer for grad students and faculty who want to learn more: online.ucpress.edu/collabra/art...

New paper led by @drlynam.bsky.social on the need for more training in and engagement with open science practices in clinical psych programs. It has been difficult to make progress due to a variety of barriers, including students working in labs uninterested or hostile to these approaches.

Thanks! This is an awesome resource. Made me do some (sobering) reflection of how my own data sharing practices. Sadly, in our current lit review, there appears to be so little open data that the vast majority of studies would just be coded “0” across the board.

consider “open” even by the loosest of standards…womp womp.

Thanks! I think your perspective rightly acknowledges reproducibility as a key function of open data, and data that is “open” but not usable without considerable work on the reproducer’s part falls short of the ideal. That said, in our lit review, we sure aren’t seeing much data that one could

Def a spectrum, and yes at some point it is functionally indistinguishable from “data available upon request.” I esp appreciate your point about potential for denial…when that’s on the table, feels much more clearly not open.

Thanks! Project goal is really just to provide a literature overview, so I agree a separate code for these instances would be helpful. Don’t want to knock authors who couldn’t provide open data for legit legal reasons, but nonetheless they’re unavailable and that should be captured in some way.

What if data are accessible after I create account, sign forms, AND university legal team has to get involved and have extensive back and forth with data agency? Openness = less clear.

How many hoops does one have to jump through to access “open” data before “open” label is no longer appropriate?

regulatory red tape that practical accessibility is uncertain. Feels like we’re facing a version of the paradox of the heap…
If data are accessible after I create an account on a site, seems like open data. If data are accessible after I create an account AND sign a few forms, still seems open.

Question for my open science peeps! @nphillips36.bsky.social and I are working on a lit review where we’re coding whether or not manuscripts have open data.
How should we handle cases where authors provide links to big, “open” datasets? In some of these cases, the data are hidden behind so much…

Check out our forthcoming viewpoint article in the Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science in which we argue that it is well past time to abandon the term 'dark' to describe antagonistic traits. w/ @jdmiller.bsky.social and @drlynam.bsky.social osf.io/preprints/ps...

Extremely excited to share the first effort of the Revived Genomics of Personality Consortium: A highly-powered, comprehensive GWAS of the Big Five personality traits in 1.14 million participants from 46 cohorts. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...

Question for the hive mind: @courtlandhyatt.bsky.social and I are conducting a scoping review that requires us to download all articles published in multiple academic journals over several years. Anybody know of a way to do this that doesn't require us to individually download each article?

You flatter me!! :) thanks, Dave!

But for those of us who aspire to do research that yields net good (e.g., for me, help folks who are prone to inappropriate aggression become less so), ensuring our research is sound maximizes the likelihood of that good actually occurring.

Aggression research is not unique in this regard...depression research can be net good (i.e., lead to less distress/impairment), cancer research can be net good, etc. And, lots of folks do great science w/no invocation of an ethical angle. In fact, dispassion can be helpful.

My first blog post! In which I advance the case that if you're like me and believe aggression research can be a net positive for the world, then you should care a lot about making sure aggression research is rigorous and replicable. A few points I didn't make in the post:

Thanks for sharing!