papers.bib

---
---

@article{Schiekiera2024,
  author = {Schiekiera, Louis AND Niemeyer, Helen AND Diederichs, Jonathan},
  title = {Classifying Positive Results in Clinical Psychology Using Natural Language Processing},
  year = {2024},
  bibtex_show={true},
  month = {July},
  journal = {Zeitschrift für Psychologie},
  url = {https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/10.1027/2151-2604/a000563},
  html = {https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/uxyzh},
  bibtex_show={true},
  selected={true},
  code={https://github.com/schiekiera/NegativeResultDetector},
  pdf={Schiekiera_et_al_2024_Preprint_Classifying_Positive_Results_Using_NLP.pdf},
  preview={https://schiekiera.github.io/assets/img/publication_preview/scibert.png},
  supp={https://schiekiera.github.io/assets/pdf/Schiekiera_et_al_2024_Preprint_Appendix_Classifying_Positive_Results_Using_NLP.pdf},
  abstract = {Background: This study addresses the gap in machine learning tools for positive results classification by evaluating the performance of SciBERT, a transformer model pretrained on scientific text, and random forest in clinical psychology abstracts. Methods: Over 1,900 abstracts were annotated into two categories: ‘positive results only’ and ‘mixed or negative results’. Model performance was evaluated on three benchmarks. The best-performing model was utilized to analyze trends in over 20,000 psychotherapy study abstracts. Results: SciBERT outperformed all benchmarks and random forest in in-domain and out-of-domain data. The trend analysis revealed non-significant effects of publication year on positive results for 1990-2005, but a significant decrease in positive results between 2005-2022. When examining the entire time-span, significant positive linear and negative quadratic effects were observed. Discussion: Machine learning could support future efforts to understand patterns of positive results in large data sets. The fine-tuned SciBERT model was deployed for public use.}
}

@article{SchiekieraRegisteredReport,
  author = {Schiekiera, Louis AND Eichel, Kristina AND Sachse, Jacqueline AND M{\"u}ller, Sophie AND Hesselmann, Felicitas AND Niemeyer, Helen},
  title = {Publication Bias in Academic Decision Making in Clinical Psychology},
  year = {2023},
  month = {Sep 22},
  journal = {Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science},
  note = {Stage 1 Registered report with in-principal acceptance},
  abbr = {RR},
  bibtex_show={true},
  selected={true},
  url = {https://osf.io/pzver/},
  pdf={Schiekiera_et_al_Stage_1_Registered_Report_Publication_Bias_AMPPS.pdf},
  preview={https://schiekiera.github.io/assets/img/publication_preview/ap1_5.png},
  supp={https://schiekiera.github.io/assets/pdf/Schiekiera_et_al_Stage_1_Registered_Report_Appendix_Publication_Bias_AMPPS.pdf},
  abstract = {Publication bias, favoring statistically significant or hypothesis-consistent findings, impedes the process of scientific knowledge production. However, questions remain about the mechanisms underlying publication bias, and work has focused on between-subjects designs rather than within-subjects experiments. This study employed a within-subject design based on Dual Process Theories to investigate selective publication and reception choices. Four online experiments presented 16 abstract vignettes to clinical psychology researchers with statistical significance and hypothesis-consistency as the treatment variables (n = 75 per experiment). Participants initially judged publication, reading, or citation likelihood, providing an intuitive evaluation. After this they rated the accompanying Feeling of Rightness (FOR), followed by a reconsidered judgment. Using multilevel models, we examined if intuitive judgments as well as changes between evaluations varied as functions of statistical significance and hypothesis-consistency. Statistically nonsignificant and hypothesis-inconsistent results were not (not / negatively) associated with publication, reading, and citation likelihoods. Changes in publication, reading, and citation likelihoods were <not> directly associated with statistically nonsignificant and hypothesis-inconsistent results. Furthermore, these associations were (not) mediated by FOR. Our results suggest that biased publication and reception choices are (not) prevalent during intuitive judgements. However, bias (does not decrease/ decreases) during reconsidered evaluations of initially biased publication and reception choices.}
}


@article{peikert2021fear,
  title={Fear of progression in parents of childhood cancer survivors: prevalence and associated factors},
  author={Peikert, Mona L AND Inhestern, Laura AND Krauth, Konstantin A AND Escherich, Gabriele AND Rutkowski, Stefan AND Kandels, Daniela and Schiekiera, Louis AND Bergelt, Corinna},
  year={2021},
  journal={Journal of cancer survivorship},
  pages={1-11},
  bibtex_show={true},
  abbr = {FoP},
  html = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11764-021-01076-w},
  selected={true},
  publisher={Springer},
  pdf={peikert_2021_fear_of_progression.pdf},
  preview={https://schiekiera.github.io/assets/img/publication_preview/fop_2.png},
  abstract = {Purpose: Recent research demonstrated that fear of progression (FoP) is a major burden for adult cancer survivors. However, knowledge on FoP in parents of childhood cancer survivors is scarce. This study aimed to determine the proportion of parents who show dysfunctional levels of FoP, to investigate gender differences, and to examine factors associated with FoP in mothers and fathers.  Methods: Five hundred sixteen parents of pediatric cancer survivors (aged 0–17 years at diagnosis of leukemia or central nervous system (CNS) tumor) were consecutively recruited after the end of intensive cancer treatment. We conducted hierarchical multiple regression analyses for mothers and fathers and integrated parent-, patient-, and family-related factors in the models.  Results: Significantly more mothers (54%) than fathers (41%) suffered from dysfunctional levels of FoP. Maternal FoP was significantly associated with depression, a medical coping style, a child diagnosed with a CNS tumor in comparison to leukemia, and lower family functioning (adjusted R2 = .30, p < .001). Paternal FoP was significantly associated with a lower level of education, depression, a family coping style, a child diagnosed with a CNS tumor in comparison to leukemia, and fewer siblings (adjusted R2 = .48, p < .001).  Conclusions: FoP represents a great burden for parents of pediatric cancer survivors. We identified associated factors of parental FoP. Some of these factors can be targeted by health care professionals within psychosocial interventions and others can provide an indication for an increased risk for higher levels of FoP.  Implications for Cancer Survivors: Psychosocial support targeting FoP in parents of childhood cancer survivors is highly indicated.}
}

@incollection{niemeyer_schiekiera_2024,
  author       = {Niemeyer, Helen and Schiekiera, Louis},
  title        = {How inclusive and equitable is research in clinical psychology that focuses on the Global South?},
  booktitle    = {A Better How: Notes on Developmental Meta-Research},
  editor       = {Forscher, Patrick S. and Schmidt, Mario},
  year         = {2024},
  publisher    = {Busara},
  address      = {Nairobi, Kenya},
  pages        = {72--80},
  url =        {https://www.busara.global/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/A-Better-How-Book.pdf},
  doi          = { doi.org/10.62372/ISCI6112},
  isbn         = {978-9914-766-06-6},
  note         = {Licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0}
}