Consistency of effects is important in replication


In this rejoinder, we discuss Mathur and VanderWeele’s response to our article, ‘Statistical Analyses for Studying Replication: Meta-Analytic Perspectives,’ which appears in this current issue. We attempt to clarify a point of confusion regarding the inclusion of an original study in an analysis of replication, and the potential impact of publication bias. We then discuss the methods used by Mathur and VanderWeele to conduct an alternative analysis of the Gambler’s Fallacy example from our article. We highlight that there are some potential statistical and conceptual differences to their approach compared to what we propose in our article

Psychological Methods