Examining Linguistic Differences in Electronic Health Records for Diverse Patients With Diabetes: Natural Language Processing Analysis.

Background: Individuals from minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds experience pernicious and pervasive health disparities that have emerged, in part, from clinician bias.

Objective: We used a natural language processing approach to examine whether linguistic markers in electronic health record (EHR) notes differ based on the race and ethnicity of the patient. To validate this methodological approach, we also assessed the extent to which clinicians perceive linguistic markers to be indicative of bias.

How Can Big Data Science Transform the Psychological Sciences?

Big data and related technologies are radically altering our society. In a similar way, these approaches can transform the psychological sciences. The goal of this commentary is to motivate psychologists to embrace big data science for the betterment of the field.

From alpha to omega and beyond! A look at the past, present, and (possible) future of psychometric soundness in the Journal of Applied Psychology.

The psychometric soundness of measures has been a central concern of articles published in the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP) since the inception of the journal. At the same time, it isn't clear that investigators and reviewers prioritize psychometric soundness to a degree that would allow one to have sufficient confidence in conclusions regarding constructs. The purposes of the present article are to (a) examine current scale development and evaluation practices in JAP; (b) compare these practices to recommended practices, previous practices, and practices in other journals; and (c) use these comparisons to make recommendations for reviewers, editors, and investigators regarding the creation and evaluation of measures including Excel-based calculators for various indices.

From Outcome to Process Focus: Fostering a More Robust Psychological Science Through Registered Reports and Results-Blind Reviewing.

A variety of alternative mechanisms, strategies, and "ways of doing" have been proposed for improving the rigor and robustness of published research in the psychological sciences in recent years. In this article, we describe two existing but underused publication models-registered reporting (RR) and results-blind reviewing (RBR)-that we believe would contribute in important ways to improving both the conduct and evaluation of psychological research. We first outline the procedures and distinguishing features of both publication pathways and note their value for promoting positive changes to current scientific practices.