Tim Kaiser
LightNews LightNews
banner
tkaiser.science
Tim Kaiser
@tkaiser.science
3.9K followers 3.1K following 5.1K posts
I am a psychologist working at the intersection of psychotherapy research and quantitative methods. Currently working on causal learning and attribution methods at @fupsych.bsky.social - views are my own.

More: https://linktr.ee/tkaiser_science
Posts Replies Media Videos
tkaiser.science
Post a famous bathroom scene
November 26, 2025 at 6:29 AM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
julianschmitz.com
Der Bremer Senator für Kinder und Bildung @rackles.bsky.social rechnet vor, wie wenig aus dem Sondervermögen für Kitas und Schulen übrig bleibt. Ernüchternd. www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/kita...
November 26, 2025 at 6:13 AM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
alxndrmlk.bsky.social
Cannot Answer Exactly?

Try Causal Bounds

Answering causal questions might be difficult. Causal bounds offer a useful alternative when exact answers are not possible.

Why does it matter?

1/

#CausalSky #EpiSky #StatSky #MLSky
November 24, 2025 at 7:29 PM
tkaiser.science
This is new: the APA site of a certain journal tells me that my institution doesn't have access to it. I then look for other PDF sources and find that, on ResearchGate, the very same paper can be downloaded for free *because my institution is subscribed*.
November 24, 2025 at 1:06 PM
tkaiser.science
If you think your caffeine tolerance is so high that you only drink it to prevent withdrawal symptoms, this brand will be a completely new experience...
November 24, 2025 at 10:10 AM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
tkaiser.science
🔥 New paper, led by my PhD student @selindem.bsky.social: preregistered single-case experimental study showing the positive impact of using the GPNS feedback system on the therapeutic alliance.

Open access: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
Does structured, psychometrically based feedback discussion cause improvements of the therapeutic alliance? A single-case experimental study
Routine outcome monitoring and feedback (ROM) systems have been established to enhance therapeutic outcomes, prevent drop-outs and facilitate data-driven personalization in psychotherapy. However, ...
www.tandfonline.com
November 20, 2025 at 1:18 PM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
prabinov42.bsky.social
Did you know, that in 'honour' of wakefield, there is an #rstats package named after him that generates fake data?
Makes me proud to be an R user.
November 21, 2025 at 1:25 PM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
polizeigruen.bsky.social
Es dürfte eines der vielen Interviews mit #Kriminologen in den letzten Jahren sein, die alle zu dem gleichen Ergebnis kommen. Wir leben in einem sicheren Land u. die #Kriminalität ist nicht signifikant gestiegen. Nur glauben das die wenigsten, denn die mediale

1/X

www.ndr.de/forscherin-w...
Forscherin zu Stadtbild-Debatte: "Wir leben in einem der sichersten Länder der Welt"
Seit Bundeskanzler Friedrich Merz (CDU) das angeblich oft problematische Stadtbild in Deutschland kritisiert und dies in einen Zusammenhang mit Migration und Kriminalität gebracht hat, ist die Empörun...
www.ndr.de
November 2, 2025 at 5:04 PM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
mehr.nz
psych departments post a faculty job that has nothing to do with AI challenge
September 10, 2025 at 11:02 AM
tkaiser.science
🔥 New paper, led by my PhD student @selindem.bsky.social: preregistered single-case experimental study showing the positive impact of using the GPNS feedback system on the therapeutic alliance.

Open access: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
Does structured, psychometrically based feedback discussion cause improvements of the therapeutic alliance? A single-case experimental study
Routine outcome monitoring and feedback (ROM) systems have been established to enhance therapeutic outcomes, prevent drop-outs and facilitate data-driven personalization in psychotherapy. However, ...
www.tandfonline.com
November 20, 2025 at 1:18 PM
tkaiser.science
November 20, 2025 at 10:13 AM
tkaiser.science
Important figure from the post
November 20, 2025 at 8:27 AM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
tkaiser.science
What is currently being done to ensure that shared variance (i.e., symptoms) is not constantly confused with shared etiology (i.e., causes) in dimensional models of psychopathology? Asking because I read a certain preprint.
November 10, 2025 at 9:56 AM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
mkgood.bsky.social
I have seen this study making the rounds on bsky and think it is an interesting and worthwhile research question that deserves more awareness!

However, I have some reservations.

doi.org/10.1192/bjp....
Estimating the smallest worthwhile difference of recommended psychotherapies for depression: observational study | The British Journal of Psychiatry | Cambridge Core
Estimating the smallest worthwhile difference of recommended psychotherapies for depression: observational study
doi.org
November 17, 2025 at 9:54 PM
tkaiser.science
"You asked for truffle pasta, we gave you a microwave burger"
steamtraen.eu Nick Brown @steamtraen.eu · 10d
Moral: Be careful what you ask for.
November 16, 2025 at 7:06 AM
tkaiser.science
Based on this, a simple Shiny app that illustrates the difference between confidence and prediction intervals.
- select how much variance in IQ your score explains,
- how many people to simulate,
- how wide you want the interval.

And see how many true IQ scores fall inside PIs and CIs.
November 13, 2025 at 1:24 PM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
toshi-frkw.bsky.social
The SWD (smallest worthwhile difference) for psychotherapies for depression was just about the same as that for antidepressants and only one in three people would be happy to initiate psychotherapies. www.cambridge.org/core/journal...
Estimating the smallest worthwhile difference of recommended psychotherapies for depression: observational study | The British Journal of Psychiatry | Cambridge Core
Estimating the smallest worthwhile difference of recommended psychotherapies for depression: observational study
www.cambridge.org
November 11, 2025 at 2:29 AM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
toshi-frkw.bsky.social
Having said that, our NMA indicated that psychotherapies are stronger than drugs in producing sustained response up to a year by as much as 16 percentage points. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/...
Initial treatment choices to achieve sustained response in major depression: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis
Major depression is often a relapsing disorder. It is therefore important to start its treatment with therapies that maximize the chance of not only getting the patients well but also keeping them we....
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
November 13, 2025 at 3:34 AM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
hansonmark.bsky.social
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
tkaiser.science
I never understood why these companies are even taken seriously.
Polygenic scores explain ~7% of IQ variance. Even under luxurious assumptions, you could maybe say something like "your kid will have an IQ between 72 and 128 with 95% probability". What's useful about this?
antonioregalado.bsky.social Antonio Regalado @antonioregalado.bsky.social · 15d
A month after Bari Weiss hired to lead CBS News division, heretic eugenics philosopher Jonathan Anomaly is on the morning show pitching bell curves and embryo scores.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvVM...
November 11, 2025 at 9:31 AM
tkaiser.science
🚀 New paper (open access) out in Cognitive Therapy & Research: we (@herzog.bsky.social, @evalottabrakemeier.bsky.social, @hudsongolino.bsky.social and me) ask whether group‑level symptom‑change networks in CBT actually capture what happens inside each patient. #Psychology #CBT
Must We Always Go Idiographic? - Cognitive Therapy and Research
Purpose While psychological change processes are increasingly assumed to be “non-ergodic”, prompting a shift toward idiographic approaches, the assumption of ergodicity is often accepted a priori rath...
link.springer.com
November 11, 2025 at 9:11 AM
tkaiser.science
What is currently being done to ensure that shared variance (i.e., symptoms) is not constantly confused with shared etiology (i.e., causes) in dimensional models of psychopathology? Asking because I read a certain preprint.
November 10, 2025 at 9:56 AM
tkaiser.science
"I think generative AI is an event that is similar (in very broad strokes) to when Wikipedia first came online. The current situation reminds me of sitting in high school classes listening to teachers say that Wikipedia is an untrustworthy source, because anyone can edit it to say anything."
The AI Spring
agnos.is
November 8, 2025 at 6:55 PM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
matthewbjane.bsky.social
Wanna write a meta-analysis error report? matthewbjane.quarto.pub/meta-analysi...
Meta-Analysis Error Reports
matthewbjane.quarto.pub
June 28, 2025 at 12:22 AM
Reposted by Tim Kaiser
tkaiser.science
Beeindruckender Vortrag von Isabel Dziobek mit einigen erschreckenden Zahlen:
-42% der Therapeut*innen halten es für möglich dass Impfungen Autismus verursachen,
- 34% sehen Ursachen in „kalten“ Bezugspersonen #ptk2022

🫣
November 3, 2024 at 10:49 PM