Jpsp study design
Journal-specific Claude Code/Codex skill packs covering mainstream journals — AER, QJE, Nature, Cell, 管理世界, 经济研究 & 200+ more — your fast track to getting published. | 覆盖主流期刊的 Claude Code/Codex 期刊技能包,从选题、识别策略到表格规范与审稿回复全流程,助你快速发论文。
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jpsp-study-designAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when designing the multi-study package for a Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP) manuscript — sequencing studies, powering each one, choosing experimental / longitudinal / dyadic designs, and planning preregistration. Designs the study set; it does not collect or fabricate data.
SKILL.md
7.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Study Design — The Multi-Study Package (jpsp-study-design)
This is the skill that most distinguishes JPSP from short-report journals. A JPSP paper is a coherent set of related studies built to test a theory, not a single experiment. The package must converge: each study should add something the previous one could not establish, and the set should withstand the question "could one study break the whole story?"
When to trigger
- Planning the sequence and roles of studies in the package
- Powering each study and the package as a whole
- Choosing designs (experiment, survey, longitudinal, dyadic/APIM, intensive-longitudinal, archival)
- Deciding what to preregister and what is exploratory
Designing the package
- Give every study a job. A common arc: establish the effect → test the mechanism (mediation/process) → probe boundary conditions / moderators → demonstrate generalization (population, context, method). Avoid a pile of near-identical replications.
- Triangulate methods. Combine, e.g., an experiment (causal) with a field/longitudinal study (external validity) so the package is robust to any single design's weaknesses.
- Mind the section's study budget. IRGP caps the main text at 5 studies; additional studies go to supplemental materials with results summarized briefly. Prioritize the studies that carry the argument. (Section-specific; verify — 待核实.)
- Power each study explicitly. Plan against the smallest effect size of interest, not a pilot estimate. Use simulation for multilevel/dyadic/within-subject designs; justify N per study.
- Preregister. Register hypotheses, design, sampling/stopping rule, and analysis for confirmatory
studies; mark exploratory studies as such. JPSP is TOP Level 2 and asks you to state
preregistration status (see
jpsp-open-science-and-transparency). - Design for the internal meta-analysis. Use comparable measures/effect metrics across studies
so effects can be pooled later (
jpsp-data-analysis); plan it now, not after the fact. - Build in alternative-explanation tests. At least one study should rule out the most salient alternative account (construct, confound, alternative mediator).
Execution bridge (StatsPAI / Stata MCP)
Estimate and audit the design, don't only describe it. Full map:
execution-with-mcp. JPSP is predominantly experimental social/personality psychology; randomization inference, mediation done right (mediate, not naive controlling-away), power, and family-wise corrections are decisive.
detect_design→recommend→ fit withas_handle=true→audit_result.- Observational causal claims: staggered DiD (
callaway_santanna/sun_abraham+bacon_decomposition+honest_did_from_result); IV (effective_f_test+anderson_rubin_ci); RDD (rdrobust+mccrary_test). - Experiments: randomization-based inference,
romano_wolffor many-outcome family-wise control, andmediatefor mediation (not naive controlling-away). - Sensitivity:
oster_delta/sensemakrfor observational claims.
Report the effect size in interpretable units; route the full battery to the appendix/supplement. A run end-to-end (synthetic data, real returns) is in the JF execution walkthrough.
Anti-patterns
- A "package" that is one study run several times with cosmetic changes
- Underpowered studies whose null results are then waved away
- Adding studies reactively in revision instead of designing the set up front
- Designing studies with incomparable measures, making internal meta-analysis impossible
- Treating preregistration as paperwork rather than a constraint on later analysis
Post-credibility-revolution power calibration
Since the open-science reforms, JPSP reviewers treat underpowering as a central limitation. The anchors below are illustrative, not mandated thresholds — confirm any quantitative expectation against the journal's current submission guidelines, since JPSP publishes no fixed N or power floor.
| Design | Smallest effect of interest (illustrative) | Reviewer reflex if underpowered |
|---|---|---|
| Two-group between-subjects (ASC) | d = 0.30 | "Your null is uninterpretable — too few cases to detect your own effect" |
| 2×2 interaction (boundary) | f = 0.10 | "The moderation rests on an interaction you never powered" |
| Dyadic / APIM (IRGP) | β ≈ 0.15 | "Partner effects are noise at this dyad count" |
| Multilevel / ESM (PPID) | within-person slope | "Random-slope variance is unidentified here" |
Plan against the smallest effect of interest, never a noisy pilot d: a pilot d = 0.6 "powering" a study at N = 30 per cell is the classic way JPSP packages collapse on replication. For interactions and partner paths, simulate (simr, DeclareDesign) rather than a closed-form G*Power main-effect calculation.
Worked vignette: powering a three-study ASC package
Illustrative numbers — invented to show design logic, not real findings.
Claim: incidental gratitude broadens construal level (an ASC social-cognition effect).
- S1 (establish). Gratitude vs. neutral recall; DV = construal. Smallest effect d = 0.35 → N = 260 (~85% power); preregistered. Result d = 0.34, 95% CI [0.10, 0.58].
- S2 (mechanism). Adds self-transcendence mediator; bootstrap indirect path needs more N than the total effect, so N = 320. Result ab = 0.12, 95% CI [0.04, 0.21].
- S3 (boundary). 2×2 gratitude × time-pressure, community sample; interaction at f = 0.10 → N ≈ 520. Interaction d = 0.28, 95% CI [0.05, 0.51].
A referee checks for a comparable construal metric across all three (so they pool into one internal meta-analysis), S3 ruling out a mood-valence confound, and a non-student sample answering "is this just undergraduates?"
Output format
【Study set】S1 (establish) · S2 (mechanism) · S3 (boundary) · S4 (generalize) …
【Designs】experiment / longitudinal / dyadic-APIM / archival per study
【Power】N per study + smallest effect size of interest + method (sim?)
【Study budget】≤ section cap? (IRGP ≤5 in main text) extras → supplement
【Preregistration】what is confirmatory vs exploratory
【Meta-analysis ready】comparable effect metrics across studies? [Y/N]
【Next】jpsp-data-analysis
Supplementary resources
../../resources/external_tools.md— power (G*Power, simr, Superpower), DeclareDesign, dyadic/multilevel tools../../resources/official-source-map.md— section study caps and length rules