Use when analyzing and reporting the multi-study package for a Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP) manuscript to JARS standard — effect sizes with uncertainty, honest robustness, and an internal meta-analysis that pools effects across studies. Guides analysis and reporting norms; it does not fabricate results.
Scanned 6/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill jpsp-data-analysis --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Jpsp Data Analysis?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/brycewang-stanford-jpsp-data-analysis)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: jpsp-data-analysis
description: Use when analyzing and reporting the multi-study package for a Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP) manuscript to JARS standard — effect sizes with uncertainty, honest robustness, and an internal meta-analysis that pools effects across studies. Guides analysis and reporting norms; it does not fabricate results.
---
# Data Analysis & Internal Meta-Analysis (jpsp-data-analysis)
JPSP reviewers are methodologically sophisticated and the journal requires **JARS** reporting and
**TOP Level 2** transparency. Two things set JPSP analysis apart from short-report work: (1) you are
analyzing a **set of studies**, and (2) the section expects you to **integrate across them** — an
**internal meta-analysis** is a core move, explicitly prioritized in IRGP guidance. This skill covers
execution and reporting; design lives in `jpsp-study-design`.
## When to trigger
- Analyzing studies and building the results sections
- Pooling effects across your own studies (internal meta-analysis)
- A reviewer asked for robustness, mechanism, or alternative-explanation analyses
- Reconciling preregistered vs. exploratory analyses
## Analysis norms JPSP expects
1. **Effect sizes with uncertainty.** Report standardized effect sizes and **confidence (or credible)
intervals**, not just p-values/stars; state the **substantive magnitude**, per JARS.
2. **Internal meta-analysis across studies.** Pool the comparable effects from all studies (including
any reported only in the supplement) into a **random-effects estimate with a forest plot**;
report heterogeneity. This is the package's strongest summary and an explicit section expectation.
3. **Accessible results sections.** Write results for readers with **general statistical expertise**;
relegate complex justification to tables, notes, or supplements (IRGP house rule; verify).
4. **Honest robustness.** Show specifications that could *break* an effect (alternative measures,
exclusions, estimators); report what held and what did not.
5. **Mechanism done right.** Report mediation/process with bootstrapped indirect effects and CIs;
do not over-claim causal mediation from cross-sectional data.
6. **Alternative explanations.** Provide the focused alternative-explanation analyses the section asks
for (construct validity, confounds, alternative mediators/causal models).
7. **Registered vs. exploratory.** Clearly separate confirmatory (preregistered) from exploratory
analyses; reconcile and justify any deviations from the plan.
8. **Measurement.** Report reliability and, where relevant, measurement invariance (especially PPID
individual-differences and dyadic work).
## Reproducibility while you work (not at the end)
- A **master script** regenerates every table and figure from the raw/constructed data, per study.
- **Set and report seeds** for bootstrap, simulation, and any stochastic step.
- Pin software/package versions (`renv.lock`, `requirements.txt`).
- Post data/code/materials to a **trusted repository** with a persistent identifier (TOP Level 2).
## Anti-patterns
- Stars-only tables with no effect sizes or intervals
- Reporting each study in isolation and skipping the internal meta-analysis
- p-hacking / fishing for a significant interaction; HARKing exploratory results into hypotheses
- Over-claiming causal mediation from correlational designs
- Burying a failed study instead of pooling it honestly into the meta-analysis
## Output format
```
【Per-study effects】effect size + CI + substantive meaning
【Internal meta-analysis】pooled random-effects estimate + heterogeneity + forest plot
【Mechanism】indirect effect + bootstrapped CI (design caveats)
【Robustness】specs that could break it → what held
【Registered vs exploratory】clearly separated?
【JARS + repository】reported to standard + data/code/materials posted? [Y/N]
【Next】jpsp-tables-figures
```
## Supplementary resources
- [`../../resources/external_tools.md`](../../resources/external_tools.md) — metafor (internal meta-analysis), lavaan/PROCESS, effect-size + reliability tools
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — JARS, TOP Level 2, and IRGP integrative-analysis expectation
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!