Assessment (ASM) focuses on advancing clinical assessment science and practice, with an emphasis on information relevant to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. Articles cover the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology, as well as empirical assessment of clinically relevant phenomena, such as behaviors, personality characteristics, and diagnoses. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
About the Title
Keep abreast of the current research in assessment science and practice with Assessment, the journal that brings you important articles derived from psychometric research, clinical comparisons, theoretical formulations and literature reviews that fall within the broad domain of clinical and applied psychological assessment. The journal presents information of direct relevance to the use of assessment measures, including the practical applications of measurement methods, test development and interpretation practices, and advances in the description and prediction of human behavior. In addition, the journal examines the role of psychological assessment in advancing major issues in clinical science and practice.
The scope of the journal extends from the evaluation of individuals in clinical, counseling, health, and forensic settings.
This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Assessment publishes articles advancing clinical assessment science and practice. The emphasis of this journal is on publication of information of relevance to the use of assessment measures, including test development, validation, and interpretation practices. The scope of the journal includes research that can inform assessment practices in mental health, forensic, medical, and other applied settings. Papers that focus on the assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological functioning, personality, and psychopathology are invited. Most papers published in Assessment report the results of original empirical research, however integrative review articles and scholarly case studies will also be considered. Papers focusing on a) new assessment methodologies and techniques for both researchers and practitioners, b) how assessment methods and research informs understanding of major issues in clinical psychology such as the structure, classification, and mechanisms of psychopathology, and c) multi-method assessment research and the integration of assessment methods in research and practice are of particular interest. The journal also encourages submissions introducing useful, novel, and non-redundant instruments or demonstrating how existing instruments have applicability in new research or applied contexts. All submissions should provide strong rationales for their efforts and articulate important implications for assessment science and/or practice.
Articles are invited that target empirical assessment of clinically relevant phenomena such as behaviors, personality characteristics, and diagnoses. Research subjects may represent diverse age and socioeconomic categories and both clinical and nonclinical populations. Research reviews and methodologically-focused papers will be considered.
|Douglas B. Samuel||Purdue University, USA|
|A. Alexander Beaujean||Baylor University, USA|
|Mike Chmielewski||Southern Methodist University, USA|
|Nicholas Eaton||Stony Brook University, USA|
|Tania Giovannetti||Temple University, USA|
|Frank G. Hillary||Pennsylvania State University, USA|
|Kristian E. Markon||University of Iowa, USA|
|Michelle M. Martel||University of Kentucky, USA|
|Stephanie N. Mullins-Sweatt||Oklahoma State University, USA|
|Kristin Naragon-Gainey||University of Buffalo, USA|
|Thomas Olino||Temple University, Department of Psychology, USA|
|Gina Rossi||Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Belgium|
|Robert Ackerman||University of Texas - Dallas, USA|
|James R. Allen||University of Minnesota Medical School, USA|
|Jaime L. Anderson||Sam Houston State University, USA|
|Emily Ansell||Syracuse University, USA|
|Paul A. Arbisi||Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, USA|
|Randolph C. Arnau||University of Southern Mississippi, USA|
|Michael C. Ashton||Brock University, Canada|
|Bradley Axelrod||Wayne State University, John D. Dingell VA Medical Center, USA|
|Lindsay E. Ayearst, PhD||Multi-Health Systems Inc., USA|
|R. Michael Bagby||University of Toronto, Canada|
|Matthew Baity||Alliant International University, Sacramento, USA|
|William B. Barr||NYU Comprehensive Epilepsy Center, USA|
|Yossef S. Ben-Porath||Kent State University, Ohio, USA|
|Stephen D. Benning||Vanderbilt University, USA|
|Mark Blais||Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard University Medical School, USA|
|Robert F. Bornstein||Adelphi University|
|Amy B. Brunell||Ohio State University, USA|
|Danielle Burchett||California State University, Monterey Bay, CA, USA|
|Nicole M. Cain||Rutgers University, USA|
|Matthew Calamia||Louisiana State University, USA|
|David S. Chester||Virginia Commonwealth University, USA|
|Lee Anna Clark||University of Notre Dame, USA|
|David E. Conroy||The Pennsylvania State University, USA|
|Cristina Crego||University of Kentucky, USA|
|Keith R. Cruise||Fordham University, USA|
|Mark D. Cunningham||Clinical & Forensic Psychologist|
|Barbara De Clercq||Ghent University, Belgium|
|Julia M. DiFilippo||Strongsville, OH, USA|
|Jacobus A. M. Donders||Mary Free Bed Rehabilitation Hospital, USA|
|Brent Donnellan||Texas A&M University, Department of Psychology, USA|
|Lea Dougherty||University of Maryland, USA|
|John F. Edens||Texas A&M University, USA|
|Joseph L. Etherton||Texas State University, USA|
|Thomas A. Fergus||Baylor University, USA|
|Jessica K. Flake||McGill University, Canada|
|Johnathan D. Forbey||Ball State University, USA|
|Andrea Fossati||LUMSA University and San Raffaele Hospital, Italy|
|Eiko Fried||Leiden University, Netherlands|
|Todd Girard||Ryerson University, Canada|
|Catherine Glenn||University of Rochester, New York, USA|
|Robin Green||University of Toronto/Toronto Rehab Centre, Canada|
|Michael Gurtman||University of Wisconsin Parkside, USA|
|Michael Hallquist||University of Pittsburgh, USA|
|Richard W. Handel||Eastern Virginia Medical School, USA|
|Robert K. Heaton||University of California, San Diego, USA|
|Kirk S. Heilbrun||Drexel University, USA|
|Brian Hicks||University of Minnesota, USA|
|Joeri Hofmans||Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium|
|Christopher J. Hopwood||University of California - Davis, USA|
|John Hunsley||University of Ottawa, Canada|
|John A. Johnson||Pennsylvania State University, DuBois, USA|
|Zornitsa Kalibatseva||Stockton University, USA|
|Yuliya Kotelnikova||University of New Orleans, USA|
|Radhika Krishnamurthy||Florida Institute of Technology, USA|
|Daryl G. Kroner||Southern Illinois University Carbondale, USA|
|Robert Krueger||University of Minnesota, USA|
|Kevin R. Krull||Texas Children's Hospital, USA|
|Ian Kudel||Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, USA|
|John E. Kurtz||Villanova University, USA|
|Sean Lane||Purdue University, USA|
|Tayla T.C. Lee||Ball State University, USA|
|Sara Lowmaster||Boston VA, USA|
|Melissa Sue Magyar||Texas A&M|
|Kenneth Mah||Toronto General Hospital, Canada|
|E. Mark Mahone||John Hopkins University School of Medicine, USA|
|Patrick A. Markey||Villanova University, USA|
|Rob Meijer||University of Groningen, Netherlands|
|Gregory J. Meyer||University of Toledo, USA|
|Joshua D. Miller||The University of Georgia, USA|
|Leslie C. Morey||Texas A&M University, USA|
|Jason Moser||Michigan State University, USA|
|Tonia L. Nicholls||British Columbia Mental Health & Addiction Services, Canada|
|Molly Nikolas||The University of Iowa, USA|
|Thomas Oltmanns||Washington University in St. Louis, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, USA|
|Augustine Osman||University of Texas, San Antonio, USA|
|Randy K. Otto||USA|
|Sam Parsons||University of Oxford, UK|
|Thomas D. Parsons||University of North Texas, USA|
|Christopher Patrick||Florida State University, Department of Psychology, USA|
|Ralph L. Piedmont||Loyola College in Maryland, USA|
|Aaron L. Pincus||Pennsylvania State University, USA|
|James Prisciandaro||Medical University of South Carolina, USA|
|Lena C. Quilty||Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Canada|
|Cecil R. Reynolds||Texas A & M University, USA|
|Michael J. Roche||Pennsylvania State University, Altoona|
|Richard Rogers||University of North Texas, College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, USA|
|Barry Rosenfeld||Fordham University, USA|
|Steve Rubenzer||Diplomate in Forensic Psychology|
|Gentiana Sadikaj||McGill University, Canada|
|Darcy A. Santor||University of Ottawa, Canada|
|Shannon Sauer-Zavala||University of Kentucky, USA|
|Dan Segal||University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, USA|
|Martin Sellbom||University of Otago, Department of Psychology, New Zealand|
|Carla Sharp||University of Houston, USA|
|Margaret Sibley||Florida International University, USA|
|Leonard J. Simms||University at Buffalo, USA|
|Susan C. South||Purdue University, USA|
|Stephanie Stepp||Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, USA|
|David Streiner||McMaster University, Canada|
|Jennifer L. Tackett||Northwestern University, Department of Psychology, USA|
|Antonio Terracciano||Florida State University, USA|
|Sander Thomaes||Utrecht University, Netherlands|
|Timothy J. Trull||University of Missouri, Department of Psychological Sciences, USA|
|Erik Turkheimer||University of Virginia, Department of Psychology, USA|
|Carlo O.C. Veltri||St. Olaf College, USA|
|David Watson||University of Notre Dame, Department of Psychology, USA|
|Nathan C. Weed||Central Michigan University, USA|
|Irving B. Weiner||University of South Florida, USA|
|Thomas A. Widiger||University of Kentucky, Department of Psychology, USA|
|Blair E. Wisco||University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA|
|Frank C. Worrell||University of California, Berkeley, USA|
|Aidan Wright||University of Pittsburgh, USA|
|Dustin B. Wygant||Eastern Kentucky University, USA|
|Matthew Yalch||Palo Alto University, USA|
|Andrew Zabel||Kennedy Krieger Institute, USA|
|Patricia A. Zapf||John Jay College of Criminal Justice, The City University of New York, USA|
|Meredith A. Bucher||Purdue University, USA|
The editor invites high quality manuscripts covering a broad range of topics and techniques in the area of psychological assessment. These may include empirical studies of assessment of personality, psychopathology, cognitive functions or behavior, articles dealing with general methodological or psychometric topics relevant to assessment, or comprehensive literature reviews in any of these areas. This journal encourages submissions evaluating a) new assessment methodologies and techniques for both researchers and practitioners, b) how assessment methods and research informs understanding of major issues in clinical psychology such as the structure, classification, and mechanisms of psychopathology, and c) multi-method assessment research and the integration of assessment methods in research and practice. Additionally, the journal encourages submissions introducing useful, novel, and non-redundant instruments or demonstrating how existing instruments have applicability in new research or applied contexts. All submissions should provide strong rationales for their efforts and articulate important implications for assessment science and/or practice
Research participants may represent both clinical and nonclinical populations. Manuscripts should include how sample size has been determined, all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the study.
In general, regular articles should not exceed 30 pages of text, excluding Title Page, Abstract, Tables, Figures, Footnotes and Reference list.
Authors submitting manuscripts to the journal should not simultaneously submit them to another journal, nor should manuscripts have been published elsewhere, including the World Wide Web, in substantially similar form or with substantially similar content.
Manuscripts must be submitted in Microsoft Word or Rich Text Format (rtf) electronically at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/asmnt. Figures may be submitted using any of the formats listed below. If requesting a masked blind review, please ensure that both a manuscript file with no identifying author information and a separate title page with author details are included in your submission. Questions should be directed to the ASSESSMENT Editorial Office by email: email@example.com.
Preparation of Manuscripts:
Authors should carefully prepare their manuscripts in accordance with the following instructions.
Authors should use the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association as a guide for preparing manuscripts for submission. All manuscript pages, including reference lists and tables, must be typed double-spaced.
The first page of the paper (the title page) should contain the article title, the names and affiliations of all authors, authors’ notes or acknowledgments, and the names and complete mailing addresses of the corresponding author. If requesting a masked blind review, the first page should contain only the article title and the title page should be uploaded as a separate document.
The second page should contain an abstract of no more than 150 words and five to seven keywords that will be published following the abstract.
The following sections should be prepared as indicated:
Tables. Each table should be fully titled, double-spaced on a separate page, and placed at the end of the manuscript. Tables should be numbered consecutively with Arabic numerals. Footnotes to tables should be identified with superscript lowercase letters and placed at the bottom of the table. All tables should be referred to in the text.
Figures. Electronic copies of figures can be submitted in one of the following file formats: TIFF, EPS, JPEG, or PDF. All figures should be referred to in text. Each figure should appear on a separate page at the end of the manuscript but before the tables, and all titles should appear on a single, separate page.
Endnotes. Notes should appear on a separate page before the References section. Notes should be numbered consecutively and each endnote should be referred to in text with a corresponding superscript number.
References. Text citations and references should follow the style of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.
Authors who want to refine the use of English in their manuscripts might consider utilizing the services of SPi, a non-affiliated company that offers Professional Editing Services to authors of journal articles in the areas of science, technology, medicine or the social sciences. SPi specializes in editing and correcting English-language manuscripts written by authors with a primary language other than English. Visit http://www.prof-editing.com for more information about SPi’s Professional Editing Services, pricing, and turn-around times, or to obtain a free quote or submit a manuscript for language polishing.
Please be aware that SAGE has no affiliation with SPi and makes no endorsement of the company. An author’s use of SPi’s services in no way guarantees that his or her submission will ultimately be accepted. Any arrangement an author enters into will be exclusively between the author and SPi, and any costs incurred are the sole responsibility of the author.
Authors are encouraged to consider submitting ancillary analyses and other relevant information as electronic supplements. Such supplements should be uploaded using the supplemental files tag in Scholar One. Only doc, docx., and .pdf files are accepted for published electronic supplements. Electronic supplemental information for published manuscripts should take the form of Tables and Figures, formatted and annotated just as they would be for a manuscript, but numbered as Table S1, S2, S3, etc. and Figure S1, S2, S3 etc. Article text should refer to material in electronic supplements as appropriate, just as they would a table or figure in the published article.
As part of our commitment to ensuring an ethical, transparent and fair peer review process SAGE is a supporting member of ORCID, the Open Researcher and Contributor ID. ORCID provides a unique and persistent digital identifier that distinguishes researchers from every other researcher, even those who share the same name, and, through integration in key research workflows such as manuscript and grant submission, supports automated linkages between researchers and their professional activities, ensuring that their work is recognized.
The collection of ORCID iDs from corresponding authors is now part of the submission process of this journal. If you already have an ORCID iD you will be asked to associate that to your submission during the online submission process. We also strongly encourage all co-authors to link their ORCID ID to their accounts in our online peer review platforms. It takes seconds to do: click the link when prompted, sign into your ORCID account and our systems are automatically updated. Your ORCID iD will become part of your accepted publication’s metadata, making your work attributable to you and only you. Your ORCID iD is published with your article so that fellow researchers reading your work can link to your ORCID profile and from there link to your other publications.
Assessment now offers registered reports (RRs) as an alternative to the regular articles format. The primary distinction between these two manuscript types is that the regular articles are submitted to the journal after data collection and analyses are completed, whereas the RR format reverses this ordering such that manuscripts are submitted prior to data analysis (and often to data collection). Prospective authors of a RR submit a Stage 1 manuscript, which reviews the literature that motivates the study and specifies the methods to address the question. This Stage 1 manuscript then goes through the peer-review process. This RR review process is similar to that for regular articles and reviewers and the editorial team will suggest revisions and recommend acceptance or rejection. Ultimately, if the journal editor determines that the Stage 1 manuscript is suitable for publication, then it is offered In Principle Acceptance (IPA). A manuscript offered IPA is an agreement between the journal and the author indicating that assuming the authors carry out the research precisely has they have specified and draws a conclusion based on the evidence, then Assessment will publish the work. Following the IPA, the authors carry out the research and then prepare a Stage 2 manuscript that is submitted to the journal. Of course, the authors retain the right to withdraw the manuscript at any point, before or after IPA and these will be recorded by the journal in a publicly available section called Withdrawn Registrations. After resubmission, the Stage 2 manuscript is appraised by the editor and either accepted formally, or sent out to the original reviewers. In this case, the Stage 2 manuscript is only evaluated for the degree to which it faithfully followed the originally planned analyses, drew warranted conclusions, as well as for a review of any exploratory analyses that may have followed.
Guidelines for Registered Reports at Assessment:
As with all registered reports (RRs), those submitted to Assessment should include a complete introduction and methods section. In general, the approach to preparing these sections aims to be consistent with the guidelines offered by the Center for Open Science, but priority is given to these local guidelines where they may differ. The authors should provide all the relevant information that will facilitate peer-reviews and an editorial decision before the data have been collected (or analyzed, if that method is chosen). Given that the focus of this journal is on the development, validation, and interpretation of instruments, some additional recommendations are offered for preparing RRs for submission to Assessment. Here we discriminate between three broad classes of RRs that can be considered at Assessment.
The first broad class of RRs are studies that seek to examine the psychometric properties, or construct validation, of existing instruments. This can include any number of examinations, such as temporal consistency, factor structure, measurement invariance, predictive validity, or diagnostic accuracy.
The second class of RRs are for evaluations that seek to modify an existing instrument, such as by creating an abbreviated or revised version of a scale.
The third and final class of RRs are for projects that aim to develop a novel instrument. This latter class of RRs present a unique and novel extension of the RR process and so authors are encouraged to consult with the Editor-In-Chief in advance of submitting such a manuscript.
The introduction section for all RRs should include a complete review of the relevant literature. For studies examining the properties of an existing instrument, this literature review should introduce the current empirical state of the literature for the focal instrument, as well as the degree to which these properties are known about other instruments of the same or similar constructs. This should pay particular attention to the relevant findings as well as the types of samples utilized to date. The authors should make the clear case for the limitations of this existing literature and what motivates the proposed study. It is worth noting here a series of recommendations offered by Dr. Samuel in his incoming editorial (see Samuel, 2019) in this regard, including the fact that simply demonstrating that something has not been done, does not mean it should be done. This is particularly true for tests of measurement invariance across demographic variables. Recall that for RRs, the authors should be able to make the case that the proposed research will yield relevant conclusions regardless of the findings. In line with best practices for RRs, authors should note that the introduction section is “locked” following the IPA and can only be altered with respect to correcting factual or typographic errors, or meaningful updates to the literature that occurred in the interim.
Authors should provide a full description of the proposed sampling method as well as the expected characteristics of the acquired sample, based on the proposed procedures that is written in the future tense. This should include inclusion or exclusion criteria, including any pre-screen testing as well as how invalid or incomplete responders will be identified and excluded. This should also include the rationale for utilizing the sample/population and how likely the results are to generalize to the assessment question of interest. The choice of sample size should be informed, where possible, by an a priori power analysis based on the best available estimated effect size, which in many cases will be the lowest meaningful estimate. A priori power should be above 0.8 for all proposed hypothesis tests. If the goal of the study is to estimate an effect size rather than test a hypothesis, then the authors should provide the best estimate available for that effect. For more complex models statistical models (e.g., factor analysis) a justification for the sample size should be provided. This could be a formal power analysis using simulation methods or justification from methodological literature for adequate power and estimation of the model (see MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 2006). For Bayesian approaches, please consult the OSF guidelines as well as Schönbrodt & Wagenmakers (2016).
The method section should include a complete list of all instruments to be administered, their ordering, as well as the method of administering (e.g., computerized vs. paper and pencil) and scoring the scales (e.g., sum, mean, IRT). If any experimental manipulations are planned, those should be provided in sufficient detail to permit repetition. In short, the method section should provide all the details necessary for an independent researcher to repeat the study.
The proposed analysis pipeline can be included in either a statistical analyses sub-section of the methods, or as a prospective results section. If the latter is chosen, authors should write this section using placeholders for the statistical tests (e.g., “the CFI for model A was .XXX”), such that actual values can be substituted following data analysis. The analysis plan should include all data processing steps, the precise nature of planned analyses, including any covariates to be used and the approach to correcting for multiple comparisons. Ideally, all analysis scripts should be written beforehand and submitted with the Stage 1 report. Further, the use of simulated data to prepare Tables and Figures is highly encouraged. For analytic steps that are contingent upon results of initial analyses – this will be particularly true for instrument revision and development, please see below – the authors should specify the decision rules that will be used to determine how the results inform subsequent steps and support the rationale for those approaches. Of course, authors are free to conduct any number of analyses beyond those specified in the RR, but those would be included in a separate section of the results, labeled “exploratory analyses.” Finally, the method section should specify a timeline by which the study will be completed. Extensions to this deadline for submission of the Stage 2 report are negotiable with the Editor-in-Chief.
Special Considerations for Instrument Development and Revision:
Scale development is an inherently iterative process that includes a large number of decision points, recursive and dependent aspects, and typically multiple data collections that all serve the broader purpose of construct validation (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955). As such, the most appropriate approach to RRs may entail pre-registering a set of decision rules or standard operating procedures that seek to outline aspirational properties of the measure, as well as plans for how competing properties will be prioritized. For example, scale developers may seek to select indicators that correlate highly, but not too highly, with each other, while also balancing the need to cover the breadth of the latent construct. Thus, RR authors may specify a range of inter-indicator correlations that will be prioritized (e.g., values below r = .60, but above r = .20), while also recognizing that this lower threshold might need to be relaxed to r = .15 if low base-rate indicators are necessary to maximize test information between theta of -4.0 and 4.0. The values mentioned here are not suggestions, but rather examplars of the type of language and priorities that might be considered. Ultimately, the field may settle on a set of considerations to be specified in a Registered Report of a new instrument, as well as possibly recommendations for the specific properties. Rather than attempting to specify those at this point in time, or wait for them to be developed, the approach at Assessment is to encourage this work and learn from the process. Therefore, we encourage RR authors to consult seminal works on scale construction and construct validation (e.g., Clark & Watson, 1995) to consider the relevant steps that should pre-specified. In general, we encourage the authors to adopt the approach that is most sensible for their instrument. In some cases this might all be anticipated and specified in the Stage 1 manuscript, but Assessment is also open to the practice of incremental registrations that are resubmitted following preliminary data collection.
A critical consideration for RRs that seek to build a novel instrument, is that it is imperative to first demonstrate the need for a new instrument. This necessarily entails an introduction that reviews the most relevant existing instruments measuring the construct, as well as those that measure related or overlapping constructs. The key point here is to outline why an additional measure is needed and how the proposed instrument will fit into the existing literature. Importantly, this does not suggest that additional or complementary measures of existing constructs are unnecessary or unwelcome. Quite the contrary. Authors should, however, make clear that the other measures exist and make a compelling case that their conceptualization, operationalization, or measurement approach is a meaningful addition to the field.
Overarching Guidelines and Expectations:
- Ethics/Institutional Review Board approval for the proposed research is expected to be secured prior to the submission of an RR to Assessment. There may well be changes to the protocol suggested during the Stage 1 review that will need to be vetted as with the IRB/Ethics board, however, existing approval ensures that the research can be conducted as it is proposed. If there are extenuating circumstances that complicate this in a given situation, the prospective authors are encouraged to contact the editor.
- Similarly, the resources to complete the proposed research are expected to be secured before the Stage 1 submission. As above, this ensures that the resources are in place to carry out the research as it has been proposed. This should include both equipment/facilities as well as funds available for human subjects payments. If there are cases when suggestions during the Stage 1 review may conflict with funding stipulations those can be arbitrated during the Stage 1 review process.
- Authors of RRs are expected to provide all data, code, and materials publicly available, as a general rule. There will be times when certain materials (e.g., copyrighted instruments) cannot be posted as well as situations where datasets cannot be shared due to human subjects protections or other considerations. In such cases, authors are encouraged to discuss these with the editor as soon as possible to work toward a resolution. The guiding principle is one of openness and transparency so exceptions will require justification.
- At the point of Stage 1 in-principle acceptance, authors are required to formally register their protocol in a recognized repository, either publicly or under temporary embargo until submission of the Stage 2 manuscript. The Stage 2 manuscript, when submitted, must then include a link to the registered protocol. Stage 1 protocols can be quickly and easily registered at the dedicated Registered Reports registration portal at http://osf.io/rr/
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. B. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319. doi: 10.1037/1040-3518.104.22.1689
Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct Validity in Psychological Tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281-302.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (2006). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological methods, 1, 130-149.
Schönbrodt, F. D., & Wagenmakers, E. (2016, October 25). Bayes Factor Design Analysis: Planning for compelling evidence. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1230-y