Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-g98kq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-15T11:47:09.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

J. Steven Reznick
J. Steven Reznick
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Get access

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
The Developmental Scientist's Companion
Improving Research Methodology and Achieving Professional Success
 , pp. 190 - 200
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms and profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.Google Scholar
Achor, S. (2012). Positive intelligence. Harvard Business Review, January–February, 100–102.Google Scholar
Adolph, K. E., & Robinson, S. R. (2011). Sampling development. Journal of Cognition and Development, 12(4), 411–423.10.1080/15248372.2011.608190CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ainsworth, M. D., & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: Illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Development, 41, 49–67.10.2307/1127388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, & National Council on Measurements Used in Education. (1954). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Psychological Bulletin, 51(2, pt. 2), 1–38. doi: 10.1037/h0053479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C., Colombo, J., & Shaddy, D. (2006). Visual scanning and pupillary responses in young children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 28, 1238–1256.10.1080/13803390500376790CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aslin, R. N. (2007). What’s in a look? Developmental Science, 10, 48–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Babineau, B. A., Yang, M., & Crawley, J. N. (2012). Mainstreaming mice. Neuropsychopharmacology, 37(1), 300–301. doi:10.1038/npp.2011.168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barlow, D. H. (2010). Negative effects from psychological treatments: A perspective. American Psychologist, 65(1), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, L. F. (2009). The future of psychology: Connecting mind to brain. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 326–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, D. J. (2007). Observations on the use of growth mixture models in psychological research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 757–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, D. J. (2011). Evaluating individual differences in psychological processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 115–118.10.1177/0963721411402670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, D. J., Gottfredson, N. C., Dean, D., & Zucker, R. A. (2013). Analyzing repeated measures data on individuals nested within groups: Accounting for dynamic group effects. Psychological Methods, 18(1), 1–14.10.1037/a0030639CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauer, D. J., & Reyes, H. L. M. (2010). Modeling variability in individual development: Differences of degree or kind? Child Development Perspectives, 4, 114–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauer, D. J., Sterba, S. K., & Hallfors, D. D. (2008). Evaluating group-based interventions when control participants are ungrouped. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 43(2), 210–236. doi: 10.1080/00273170802034810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauer, P. J., & Zelazo, P. D. (2014). The National Institutes of Health Toolbox for the Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function: A tool for developmental science. Child Development Perspectives, 8(3), 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 396–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumrind, D. (1968). Authoritarian vs. authoritative parental control. Adolescence, 3(11), 255–272.Google Scholar
Bechtel, W. (1988). Philosophy of science: An overview for cognitive science. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Beck, D. M. (2010). The appeal of the brain in the popular press. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 762–766.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Behrens, J. T. (1997). Principles and procedures of exploratory data analysis. Psychological Methods, 2, 131–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, L. J., Dodge, K. A., & Reznick, J. S. (2013). Examining pregnant women’s hostile attributions about infants predict offspring maltreatment. JAMA Pediatrics, 167, 549–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, C., Granger, D., Kivlighan, K., Mills-Koonce, R., Willoughby, M., Greenberg, M., et al. (2008). Maternal and child contributions to cortisol response to emotional arousal in young children from low-income, rural communities. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1095–1109.10.1037/0012-1649.44.4.1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollen, K. A., & Ting, K. (2000). A tetrad test for causal indicators. Psychological Methods, 5(1), 3–22. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.5.1.3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borsboom, D., Romeijn, J., & Wicherts, J. (2008). Measurement invariance versus selection invariance: Is fair selection possible? Psychological Methods, 13, 75–98.10.1037/1082-989X.13.2.75CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradburn, N. M., Sudman, S., & Wansink, B. (2004). Asking questions: The definitive guide to questionnaire design – for market research, political polls, and social and health questionnaires. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burchinal, M., Skinner, D., & Reznick, J. (2010). European American and African American mothers’ beliefs about parenting and disciplining infants: A mixed-method analysis. Parenting: Science And Practice, 10(2), 79–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., & Decety, J. (2012). A history of social neuroscience. In Kruglanski, A. W., Stroebe, W., Kruglanski, A. W., & Stroebe, W. (Eds.), Handbook of the history of social psychology (pp. 123–136). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., & Decety, J. (2009). What are the brain mechanisms on which psychological processes are based? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 10–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cacioppo, J. T., Semin, G. R., & Berntson, G. G. (2004). Realism, instrumentalism, and scientific symbiosis: Psychological theory as a search for truth and the discovery of solutions. American Psychologist, 59, 214–223.10.1037/0003-066X.59.4.214CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). “Clear as mud”: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2, 1–13.10.1177/160940690300200201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, R. B., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Costello, E. J. (1996). Developmental science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (Ed.). (1974). Philosophy of Karl Popper (Vol. 1). LaSalle: Open Court Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminate validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.10.1037/h0046016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cantlon, J. F., Brannon, E. M., Carter, E. J., & Pelphrey, K. A. (2006). Functional imaging of numerical processing in adults and 4-y-old children. PLoS Biology, 4, 0844–0854.10.1371/journal.pbio.0040125CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carnegie, D. (1936). How to win friends and influence people. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: Survey of factor-analytic studies. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511571312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, M. E., & Arvey, R. D. (2012). Meta-analysis and the development of knowledge. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 79–92.10.1177/1745691611429355CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chandra, A., Martino, S. C., Collins, R. L., Elliott, M. N., Berry, S. H., Kanouse, D. E., & Miu, A. (2008). Does watching sex on television predict teen pregnancy? Findings from a national longitudinal survey of youth. Pediatrics, 122, 1047–1054.10.1542/peds.2007-3066CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Churchland, P. M., & Churchland, P. S. (1998). On the contrary: Critical essays 1987–1997. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5123.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cizek, G. J. (2012). Defining and distinguishing validity: Interpretations of score meaning and justifications of test use. Psychological Methods, 17, 31–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, A. B. (2010). Just how many different forms of culture are there? American Psychologist, 65(1), 59–61. doi:10.1037/a0017793.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. (1962). The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 145–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cook, T. D. (1985). Postpositivist critical multiplism. In Shotland, R. L. & Mark, M. M. (Eds.), Social science and social policy (pp. 21–62). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Cooper, H., & Koenka, C. (2012). The overview of reviews: Unique challenges and opportunities when research syntheses are the principal elements of new integrative scholarship. American Psychologist, 67(6), 446–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
Curran, P., Hussong, A., Cai, L., Huang, W., Chassin, L., Sher, K., et al. (2008). Pooling data from multiple longitudinal studies: The role of item response theory in integrative data analysis. Developmental Psychology, 44(2), 365–380.10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.365CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Decety, J., & Cacioppo, J. (2010). Frontiers in human neuroscience: The golden triangle and beyond. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 767–771.10.1177/1745691610388780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeFries, J. C., & Fulker, D. W. (1988). Multiple regression analysis of twin data: Etiology of deviant score versus individual differences. Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemeologiae, 37, 205–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Los Reyes, A., & Wang, M. (2012). Applying psychometric theory and research to developing a continuously distributed approach to making research funding decisions. Review of General Psychology, 16(3), 298–304. doi:10.1037/a0027250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, A., Cruttenden, L., & Neiderman, D. (1994). AB with multiple wells: I. Why are multiple wells sometimes easier than two wells? II. Memory or memory + inhibition? Developmental Psychology, 30, 192–205.10.1037/0012-1649.30.2.192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. R. (2008). To prosper, organizational psychology should … overcome methodological barriers to progress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 469–491.10.1002/job.529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5, 155–174.10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.155CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elder, G. J., Shanahan, M. J., & Jennings, J. A. (2015). Human development in time and place. In Bornstein, M. H., Leventhal, T., Lerner, R. M., Bornstein, M. H., Leventhal, T., & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, Vol. 4: Ecological settings and processes (7th ed.) (pp. 6–54). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Enders, C. K. (2013). Dealing with missing data in developmental research. Child Development Perpectives, 7, 27–31. doi: 10.1111/cdep/12008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erceg-Hurn, D. M., & Mirosevich, V. M. (2008). Modern robust statistical methods. American Psychologist, 63, 591–601.10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.591CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erkut, S. (2010). Developing multiple language versions of instruments for intercultural research. Child Development Perspectives, 4(1), 19–24. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00111.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fantz, R. L. (1958). Pattern vision in young infants. Psychological Review, 8, 43–47.Google Scholar
Feldman, R., & Reznick, J. S. (1996). Maternal perception of infant intentionality at 4 and 8 months. Infant Behavior and Development, 19, 483–496.10.1016/S0163-6383(96)90008-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenson, L., Marchman, V. A., Thal, D., Dale, P., Reznick, J. S., & Bates, E. (2007). The MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories: User’s guide and technical manual. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. F., & Brannick, M. T. (2012). Publication bias in psychological science: Prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses. Psychological Methods, 17(1), 120–128.10.1037/a0024445CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiedler, K., Kutzner, F., & Krueger, J. I. (2012). The long way from α-error control to validity proper: Problems with a short-sighted false-positive debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 661–669. doi:10.1177/1745691612462587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firick, R. W. (1996). The appropriate use of null hypothesis testing. Psychological Methods, 1, 379–390.10.1037/1082-989X.1.4.379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Sir Ronald A. (1935) Mathematics of a lady tasting tea. In J. R. Newman (1956, Ed.), The world of mathematics (Vol. 3, Part 8): Statistics and the design of experiments (pp. 1514–1521). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Fiske, D. W., & Campbell, D. T. (1992). Citations do not solve problems. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 393–395.10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, E., Russo, R., Bowles, R., & Dutton, K. (2001). Do threatening stimuli draw or hold visual attention in subclinical anxiety? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 681–700.10.1037/0096-3445.130.4.681CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gehlbach, H., & Brinkworth, M. E. (2011). Measure twice, cut down error: A process for enhancing the validity of survey scales. Review of General Psychology, 15(4), 380–387. doi:10.1037/a0025704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, J., Lin, W., Gerig, G., & Tamminga, C. (2006). Fetal and neonatal brain development. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 2046–2046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giner-Sorolla, R. (2012). Will we march to utopia, or be dragged there? Past failures and future hopes for publishing our science. Psychological Inquiry, 23(3), 263–266. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2012.706506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H. M. (2012). Reconstructing constructivism: Causal models, Bayesian learning mechanisms, and the theory theory. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1085–1108. doi:10.1037/a0028044.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottlieb, G. (2007). Probabilistic epigenesis. Developmental Science, 10, 1–11.10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00556.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gough, B., & Madill, A. (2012). Subjectivity in psychological science: From problem to prospect. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 374–384. doi:10.1037/a0029313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwald, A. G. (2012). There is nothing so theoretical as a good method. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2), 99–108. doi:10.1177/1745691611434210 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grothe, I., & Plöchl, M. (2008). Amplitude asymmetry: A direct link between ongoing oscillatory activity and event-related potentials? The Journal of Neuroscience, 28(49), 13025–13027. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4670-08.2008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gullo, M. J., & O’Gorman, J. G. (2012). DSM-5 Task Force proposes controversial diagnosis for dishonest scientists. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 689. doi:10.1177/1745691612460689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunnar, M., Sebanc, A., Tout, K., Donzella, B., & van Dulmen, M. (2003). Peer rejection, temperament, and cortisol activity in preschoolers. Developmental Psychobiology, 43, 346–358.10.1002/dev.10144CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haith, M. M. (1980). Rules that babies look by: The organization of newborn visual activity. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Handy, T. C. (2004). Event-related potentials: A methods handbook. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press (B&T).Google Scholar
Harmon, A. G., Hibel, L. C., Rumyantseva, O., & Granger, D. A. (2007). Measuring salivary cortisol in studies of child development: Watch out – what goes in may not come out of saliva collection devices. Developmental Psychobiology, 49(5), 495–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brooks.Google Scholar
Hartmann, W. E., Kim, E. S., Kim, J. H. J., Nguyen, T. U., Wendt, D. C., Nagata, D. K., & Gone, J. P. (2013). In search of cultural diversity, revisited: Recent publication trends in cross-cultural and ethnic minority psychology. Review of General Psychology, 17, 243–254.10.1037/a0032260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedges, L. V. (2008). What are effect sizes and why do we need them? Child Development Perspectives, 2, 167–171.10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00060.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helms, J. E., Jernigan, M., & Mascher, J. (2005). The meaning of race in psychology and how to change it: A methodological perspective. American Psychologist, 60, 27–36.10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–135.10.1017/S0140525X0999152XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howell, R. D., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. B. (2007). Reconsidering formative measurement. Psychological Methods, 12, 205–218.10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.205CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. Oxford, England: Appleton-Century.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (2003). A treatise of human nature. New York, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(6), 581–592. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.6.581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, W. J. (1890/1981). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jarde, A., Losilla, J., Vives, J., & Rodrigo, M. F. (2013). Q-Coh: A tool to screen the methodological quality of cohort studies in systematic reviews and meta-analysis. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 13(2), 138–146.10.1016/S1697-2600(13)70017-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, V. E. (2013). Revised standards for statistical evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110, 19313–19317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, J. M. (2010). I am white and you’re not: The value of unraveling ethnocentric science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 700–707.10.1177/1745691610388771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, J. (2009a). Categories of novelty and states of uncertainty. Review of General Psychology, 13, 290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, J. (2009b). Two is better than one. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 22–23.10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01092.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kagan, J., Reznick, J. S., & Snidman, N. (1988). Biological bases of childhood shyness. Science, 240, 167–171.10.1126/science.3353713CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kagan, J. & Snidman, N. (2004). The long shadow of temperament. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, O., Doyen, S., Leys, C., de Saldanha da Gama, P. M., Miller, S., Questienne, L., & Cleeremans, A. (2012). Low hopes, high expectations: Expectancy effects and the replicability of behavioral experiments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 572–584. doi:10.1177/1745691612463704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kosslyn, S. M. (1999). If neuroimaging is the answer, what is the question? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B, 354, 1283–1294.10.1098/rstb.1999.0479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraemer, H. C., Yesavage, J. A., Taylor, J. L., & Kupfer, D. (2000). How can we learn about developmental processes from cross-sectional studies, or can we? The American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 163–171. PMID: 10671382.10.1176/appi.ajp.157.2.163CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krause, M. S. (2012). Measurement validity is fundamentally a matter of definition, not correlation. Review of General Psychology, 16, 391–400.10.1037/a0027701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, M. S. (2013). The data analytic implications of human psychology’s dimensions being ordinally scaled. Review of General Psychology, 17(3), 318–325.10.1037/a0032292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruschke, J. K. (2011). Doing Bayesian data analysis. Oxford, England: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1962/1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laborda, M. A., Miguez, G., Polack, C. W., & Miller, R. R. (2012). Animal models of psychopathology: Historical models and the Pavlovian contribution. Terapia Psicológica, 30, 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, D., & Sándor, A. (2009). Designing better graphs by including distributional information and integrating words, numbers, and images. Psychological Methods, 14, 239–257.10.1037/a0016620CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LeBel, E. P., Borsboom, D., Giner-Sorolla, R., Hasselman, F., Peters, K. R., Ratliff, K. A., & Smith, C. T. (2013). PsychDisclosure.org: Grassroots support for reforming reporting standards in psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 424–432.10.1177/1745691613491437CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leevers, H., & Harris, P. (2000). Counterfactual syllogostic reasoning in normal 4-year-olds, children with learning disabilities, and children with autism. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 76(1), 64–87.10.1006/jecp.1999.2542CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Logothetis, N. K. (2007). The ins and outs of fMRI signals. Nature Neuroscience, 10(10), 1230–1232. doi:10.1038/nn1007-1230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LoLordo, V. M. (1971). Facilitation of food-reinforced responding by a signal for response-independent food. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15(1), 49–55.10.1901/jeab.1971.15-49CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luck, S. J. (2005). An introduction to the event-relates potential technique. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child interaction. In Mussen, P. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
MacCorquodale, K., & Meehl, P. E. (1948). On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychology Review, 55, 95–107.10.1037/h0056029CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Madill, A., & Gough, B. (2008). Qualitative research and its place in psychological science. Psychological Methods, 13(3), 254–271. doi:10.1037/a0013220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magnusson, D. (1998). The logic and implications of a person-oriented approach. In Cairns, R. B., Bergman, L. R., & Kagan, J. (Eds.), Methods and models for studying the individual (pp. 33–62). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Marcovitch, S., & Zelazo, P. (1999). The A-not-B error: Results from a logistic meta-analysis. Child Development, 70, 1297–1313.10.1111/1467-8624.00095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, P. J. (2009). Relating psychology and neuroscience: Taking up the challenges. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 113–125.10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01111.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maxwell, S. E. (2004). The persistence of underpowered studies in psychological research: Causes, consequences, and remedies. Psychological Methods, 9, 147–163.10.1037/1082-989X.9.2.147CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKnight, P. E., McKnight, K. M., Sidani, S., & Figueredo, A. J. (2007). Preventing missing data by design. In D. A. Kenny (Ed.), Missing data: A gentle introduction (pp. 65–87). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medin, D., Bennis, W., & Chandler, M. (2010). Culture and the home-field disadvantage. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 708–713. doi:10.1177/1745691610388772.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risk and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–834.10.1037/0022-006X.46.4.806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, G. (2012). Revisiting truth or triviality: The external validity of research in the psychological laboratory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2), 109–117. doi:10.1177/1745691611432343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379–387.10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, D. S. (2015). The developing genome: An introduction to behavioral epigenetics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mussen, P. M. E. (1960). Handbook of research methods in child development. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Muthén, B. O. (2001). Second-generation structural equation modeling with a combination of categorical and continuous latent variables: New opportunities for latent class – latent growth modeling. In Sayer, A. & Collins, L. (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of change (pp. 289–322). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Neuenschwander, E. (2013). Qualitas and quantitas: Two ways of thinking in science. Quality & Quantity: International Journal Of Methodology, 47(5), 2597–2615. doi:10.1007/s11135-012-9674-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuroskeptic (2012). The nine circles of scientific hell. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 643–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, P. E., & Shaw, S. D. (2013). Standards for talking and thinking about validity. Psychological Methods, 18, 301–319.10.1037/a0032969CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nickerson, R. S. (2000). Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods, 5, 241–301.10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.241CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palida, S. F., Butko, M. T., Ngo, J. T., Mackey, M. R., Gross, L. A., Ellisman, M. H., & Tsien, R. Y. (2015). PKMζ, but not PKCλ, is rapidly synthesized and degraded at the neuronal synapse. The Journal of Neuroscience, 35(20), 7736–7749. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0004-15.2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, B., Rowe, M., Singer, J., & Snow, C. (2005). Maternal correlates of growth in toddler vocabulary production in low-income families. Child Development, 76, 763–782.10.1111/1467-8624.00498-i1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelphrey, K., & Morris, J. (2006). Brain mechanisms for interpreting the actions of others from biological-motion cues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 136–140.10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00423.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pelphrey, K. A., Reznick, J. S., Goldman, B. D., Sasson, N., Morrow, J., Donahoe, A., & Hodgson, K. (2004). Development of visuospatial short-term memory in the second half of the first year. Developmental Psychology, 40, 836–851.10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. (1952/1936). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International University Press.10.1037/11494-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. (1954/1937). The construction of reality in the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.10.1037/11168-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinkham, A., Hopfinger, J., Pelphrey, K., Piven, J., & Penn, D. (2008). Neural bases for impaired social cognition in schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorders. Schizophrenia Research, 99, 164–175.10.1016/j.schres.2007.10.024CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popper, K. (1934/2002). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Porges, S., Doussard-Roosevelt, J., Portales, L., & Suess, P. (1994). Cardiac vagal tone: Stability and relation to difficultness in infants and 3-year-olds. Developmental Psychobiology, 27, 289–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poulin, F., Dishion, T., & Burraston, B. (2001). 3-year iatrogenic effects associated with aggregating high-risk adolescents in cognitive-behavioral preventive interventions. Applied Developmental Science, 5(4), 214–224.10.1207/S1532480XADS0504_03CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pungello, E. P., Iruka, I. U., Dotterer, A. M., Mills-Koonce, R., & Reznick, J. S. (2009). The effects of income, race, sensitive parenting and harsh parenting on receptive and expressive language development in early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 45, 544–557.10.1037/a0013917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60, 20–43.10.2307/2181906CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratto, A. B. (2013). The impact of cultural factors on the diagnostic process in autism: A comparison of Latina and European American mothers (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing database. (Dissertation number: 3593268.)Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1951). The rise of scientific philosophy. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520341760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (2006). Experience and prediction: An analysis of the foundations and the structure of knowledge. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Reinhart, A. (2015). Statistics done wrong: The woefully complete guide. San Francisco: No Starch Press.Google Scholar
Rennie, D. L. (2012). Qualitative research as methodical hermeneutics. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 385–398. doi:10.1037/a0029250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reznick, J. S. (2007). Working memory in infants and toddlers. In Oakes, L. M. & Bauer, P. J. (Eds.), Short- and long-term memory in infancy and early childhood: Taking the first steps toward remembering (pp. 3–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reznick, J. S. (2008). Inferring infant intentionality. Berlin: VDM Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
Reznick, J. S., Baranek, G. T., Reavis, S., Watson, L. R., & Crais, E. R. (2007). A parent-report instrument for identifying one-year olds at risk for an eventual diagnosis of autism: The first year inventory. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1691–1710.10.1007/s10803-006-0303-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reznick, J. S., Corley, R., & Robinson, J. (1997). A longitudinal twin study of intelligence in the second year. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(1, Serial No. 249).Google Scholar
Reznick, J. S., Morrow, J. D., Goldman, B. D., & Snyder, J. (2004). The onset of working memory in infants. Infancy, 6, 145–154.10.1207/s15327078in0601_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reznick, J. S., & Richman, C. L. (1976). Effects of class complexity, class frequency, and preexperimental bias on rule learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 2(6), 774–782. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.2.6.774.Google Scholar
Reznick, J. S., & Schwartz, B. B. (2001). When is an assessment an intervention? Parent perception of infant intentionality and language. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 11–17.Google Scholar
Richards, J., & Gibson, T. (1997). Extended visual fixation in young infants: Look distributions, heart rate changes, and attention. Child Development, 68, 1041–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richman, C. L., Mitchell, D. B., & Reznick, J. S. (1979). Mental travel: Some reservations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5(1), 13–18. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.5.1.13.Google ScholarPubMed
Richters, J. E. (1997). The Hubble hypothesis and the developmentalist’s dilemma. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 193–229.10.1017/S0954579497002022CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robinson, J. P., & Martin, S. (2008). What do happy people do? Social Indicators Research, 89, 565–571.10.1007/s11205-008-9296-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodgers, J. L. (2010). The epistemology of mathematical and statistical modeling: A quiet methodological revolution. American Psychologist, 65, 1–12.10.1037/a0018326CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenberg, A. (2005). Philosophy of science: A contemporary introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9780203087060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1979). “File drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.10.1007/BF02322211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salapatek, P., & Kessen, W. (1966). Visual scanning of triangles by the human newborn. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 3, 155–167.10.1016/0022-0965(66)90090-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salmon, P. (2003). How do we recognize good research? The Psychologist, 16(1), 24–27.Google Scholar
Sanders, L. (2009). Trawling the brain. Science News, 176, 16–20.Google Scholar
Sanders, L. (2011). Residents of the brain: Scientists turn up startling diversity among nerve cells. Science News, July 30.10.1002/scin.5591800326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, F. (2010). Detecting and correcting the lies that data tell. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 233–242. doi:10.1177/1745691610369339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications for training of researchers. Psychological Methods, 1, 115–129.10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzer, J. J., Koenig, C. M., & Berman, R. F. (2013). Using mouse models of autism spectrum disorders to study the neurotoxicology of gene–environment interactions. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 3617–3635. doi:10.1016/j.ntt.2012.08.007.Google Scholar
Scott-Phillips, T. C., Dickins, T. E., & West, S. A. (2011). Evolutionary theory and the ultimate-proximate distinction in the human behavioral sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6 (1), 38–47.10.1177/1745691610393528CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shonkoff, J. P., & Bales, S. N. (2011). Science does not speak for itself: Translating child development research for the public and its policymakers. Child Development, 82(1), 17–32. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01538.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmering, V. R., Triesch, J., Deák, G. O., & Spencer, J. P. (2010). A dialogue on the role of computational modeling in developmental science. Child Development Perspectives, 4(2), 152–158. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00134.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simpson, E. H. (1951). The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B, 13, 238–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1972). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Smedley, A., & Smedley, B. D. (2005). Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real: Anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race. American Psychologist, 60, 16–26.10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staats, A. W. (1999). Unifying psychology requires new infrastructure, theory, method, and a research agenda. Review of General Psychology, 3, 3–13.10.1037/1089-2680.3.1.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, L., & Fletcher, A. C. (1998). Data analytic strategies in research on ethnic minority youth. In McLoyd, V. C. & Steinberg, L. (Eds.), Studying minority adolescents: Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical issues (pp. 279–294). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Unified psychology. American Psychologist, 56, 1069–1079.10.1037/0003-066X.56.12.1069CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sulloway, F. J. (1997). Born to rebel: Birth order, family dynamics, and creative lives. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. A. (2006). The development of the person: Social understanding, relationships, conscience, self. In Eisenberg, N. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed., pp. 24–98). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Tudge, J., Putnam, S., & Valsiner, J. (1996). Culture and cognition in developmental perspective. In Cairns, R. B., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Costello, E. J. (Eds.), Developmental science (pp. 190–222). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
van der Worp, H. B., Howells, D. W., Sena, E. S., Porritt, M. J., Rewell, S., O’Collins, V., & Macleod, M. R. (2010). Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Medicine, 7(3), 1–8.10.1371/journal.pmed.1000245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaughn, B., Taraldson, B., Crichton, L., & Egeland, B. (1981). The assessment of infant temperament: A critique of the Carey Infant Temperament Questionnaire. Infant Behavior and Development, 4, 1–17.10.1016/S0163-6383(81)80003-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vul, E., Harris, C., Winkielman, P., & Pashler, H. (2009). Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI studies of emotion, personality, and social cognition. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(3), 274–290. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01125.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vul, E., & Pashler, H. (2012). Voodoo and circularity errors. Neuroimage, 62(2), 945–948. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.01.027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagenmakers, E., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. J., & Kievit, R. A. (2012). An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 632–638. doi:10.1177/1745691612463078.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wainer, H. (2000). Computerized adaptive testing: A primer. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.10.4324/9781410605931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigold, A., Weigold, I. K., & Russell, E. J. (2013). Examination of the equivalence of self-report survey-based paper-and-pencil and internet data collection methods. Psychological Methods, 18(1), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Bartsch, K. (1987). A meta-analysis of research on Stage 4 object permanence: The A-not-B error. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 51(3), 1–62.Google ScholarPubMed
Wellman, H., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development, 72(May), 655–684.10.1111/1467-8624.00304CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilkinson, L., & the Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594–604.10.1037/0003-066X.54.8.594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Wöhr, M., & Scattoni, M. L. (2013). Behavioural methods used in rodent models of autism spectrum disorders: Current standards and new developments. Behavioural Brain Research, 251, 5–17. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2013.05.047.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xiaolong, J., Shan, S., Cadwell, C. R., Berens, P., Sinz, F., Ecker, A. S., … Tolias, A. S. (2015). Principles of connectivity among morphologically defined cell types in adult neocortex. Science, 350(6264), 1–10. doi:10.1126/science.aac9462.Google Scholar
Yarnold, P., & Soltysik, R. (2005). Multiple sample analysis. Optimal data analysis: A guidebook with software for windows. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Yoshikawa, H., Weisner, T. S., Kalil, A., & Way, N. (2013). Mixing qualitative and quantitative research in developmental science: Uses and methodological choices. Qualitative Psychology, 1(S), 3–18.10.1037/2326-3598.1.S.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yuste, R. (2013). Electrical compartmentalization in dendritic spines. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 36, 429–444.10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150455CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zelazo, P. D., Carter, A., Reznick, J. S., & Frye, D. (1997). Early development of executive function: A problem-solving framework. Review of General Psychology, 1(2), 198–226. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.1.2.198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • J. Steven Reznick, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Book: The Developmental Scientist's Companion
  • Online publication: 04 May 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108155359.014
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • J. Steven Reznick, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Book: The Developmental Scientist's Companion
  • Online publication: 04 May 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108155359.014
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • J. Steven Reznick, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
  • Book: The Developmental Scientist's Companion
  • Online publication: 04 May 2017
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108155359.014
Available formats
×