Corrigenda (from 2016)
Ellis, D. A., Towse, J., Brown, O., Cork, A., Davidson, B. I., Devereux, S., Hinds, J., Ivory, M., Nightingale, S., Piwek, L., Shaw, L. and Towse, A. S. (2024). Assessing computational reproducibility in Behavior Research Methods. Behavior Research Methods, 56 (8), 8745-8760
We refer to this as a 'preregistered report'. However, this should be considered a 'Registered Report' (RR). That said, the distinction between RRs, Registered Replications Reports, and study preregistration is a common source of confusion. In line with an RR format, the manuscript was reviewed in two stages based on our plans before conducting the research and again following a complete manuscript with the results. We publically preregistered our design and analysis (a minority of RRs do not involve public preregistration). However, unlike most RRs, the manuscript was not published in 2 stages.
In the Introduction (page 8746), we mention that ‘Tomko et al. (2019) designed an electronic smart lighter that can accurately quantify cigarette smoking’. Tomko et al. did not in fact design the smart lighter but assessed its feasibility and accuracy for measuring cigarette smoking.
Geyer, K., Ellis, D. A., Shaw, H. and Davidson, B. I. (2022). Open source smartphone app and tools for measuring, quantifying, and visualizing technology use Behavior Research Methods, 54(1), 1-12 Four numbers in Table 2 were rounded to two decimal places instead of one. These (and a handful of typographical errors) have been corrected in the post-print.
Hinds, J., Brown, O., Smith, L. G. E., Piwek, L., Ellis, D. A. and Joinson A. N. (2021). Integrating insights about human movement patterns from digital data into psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(1), 88-95. On page 94, the description of Ziepert et al. (2021) in the Recommended Reading section should refer to ‘state’ rather than ‘behavioral’ variables.
Shaw, H., Ellis, D., Geyer, K., Davidson, B., Ziegler, F., & Smith, A. (2020). Quantifying smartphone “use”: Choice of measurement impacts relationships between “usage” and health. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 1(2). On page, 11, ‘reduced by 238%’ should read ‘reduced two-fold’.
Ellis, D. A. (2020). Smartphones within Psychological Science. Cambridge University Press A PDF with page numbers is available.
Ellis, D. A., Davidson, B. I., Shaw, H. and Geyer, K. (2019) Do smartphone usage scales predict behavior? International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 130, 86-92 The mean value of Objective average daily number of notifications. (ObjN) in the Supplementary Materials (Table S1) should read 144.73 and not 114.73. This has been corrected in the post-print.
Ellis, D. A., Luther, K. and Jenkins, R. (2018). Missed appointments during shifts to and from daylight saving time. Chronobiology International, 35(4), 584-588 The percentage reported on page 585 (4.6%) should have been rounded to two decimal places (4.55%) to remain consistent with other results.
Mozos, O. M., Sandulescu, V., Andrews, S., Ellis, D., Bellotto, N., Dobrescu, R. and Ferrandez, J. M. (2017). Stress detection using wearable physiological and sociometric sensors. International Journal of Neural Systems, 27(2), 1650041 At the bottom of page 12, the direction of reported p value should read less than ‘<’ (rather than greater). The statistical values and interpretation remain correct.
Shaw, H., Ellis, D. A., Kendrick, L., Ziegler, F. and Wiseman, R. (2016). Predicting smartphone operating system from personality and individual differences. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,19(12), 727-732 The statistic reported below Table 3 on page 730 ‘[X2(1) = 4.46, p = 0.04]’, should read ‘[X2(1) = 3.39, p = 0.06]’. The meaning of the preceding sentence remains correct.