Our confidence in the replicability and reproducibility of research findings is a foundational pillar upon which theory, application, and progress reside. However, this pillar has recently been shaken. Large-scale efforts to document the replicability of research in psychological science has led many of its core findings to be called into question. These discipline-wide efforts have unleashed a tidal wave of new discussion and reflection on those modal practices which have contributed to the so-called “replication crisis”. 

I have recently become interested in the topics of measurement, and specifically, validation. Measurement plays a key role in replicability and ultimately calibrates the confidence we can have in our findings: if a measure is invalid then theoretical conclusions derived from it are often questionable. A number of on-going projects are currently examining measurement issues

in the domain of social and personality psychology.


Hussey, I., & Hughes, S. (2020). Hidden Invalidity in 15 Commonly Used Measures in Social and Personality Psychology. Advances in Methods and Procedures in Psychological Science, 3, 166-184. Link.

De Schryver, M., Hughes, S., De Houwer, J., & Rosseel, Y. (2019). On the Reliability of Implicit Measures: Current Practices and Novel Recommendations. Link

De Schryver, M., Hughes, S., Rosseel, Y., & De Houwer, J. (2015). Unreliable Yet Still Replicable: A Comment on LeBel and Paunonen (2011). Frontiers in PsychologyLink

Hussey, I., & Hughes, S. (in prep). V-Hacking: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Analysis Allows One to Present Anything as Valid.