QDAFI Analysis: Reproducibility in the Field of Psychology

Read the paper attached, answer 5 questions (QDAFI) using bull it points. Each 1-3 sentences max. The shorter the better. no heading needed. no citation needed
In the format:
Q:......
D: .....
A: .....
F:......
I: .....
Q: Each paper starts with a question that the authors set out to answer. State this question
explicitly, in your own words, so we can gauge understanding.
D: What did the authors do to answer the question? This should be on the level of what did they measure (y/DV) as a function of what (they) varied (x/IV), not more detailed. If they did a lot of stuff, what was the most important such x/y or IV/DV pairing regarding the question? Much of what is reported in papers are controls, internal replications or tangents that were obviously requested by reviewers.
A: The rationale links the two – what was varied and what was measured. This is usually the trickiest part because it is often not obvious to students scientists would do such things. For the dress paper (2017), the rationale is that if the lighting of the image is ambiguous so assumptions become important and if people assume lighting that they have experienced more often, then we should look for an independent variable that would alter the proportion of long wavelength exposure. Chronotype seems a good candidate, as that is stable in adult life, and everything else being equal, we can assume that owls are exposed to
more artificial – long wavelength – light than larks, so we would expect/predict them to see the dress as black/blue.
F: Literally, what is the big finding, that was set up by D and A?
I: How did the authors answer the original question, given these findings? Sometimes, there are issues like confounds (not just limitations, which all studies have) that seriously challenge the interpretation by the authors, yielding a deviating – your interpretation. This is – by the way – why explicitly stating the rationale is so important. There, the logical chain of the study will become apparent. If some of the assumptions don’t hold, or other causal links haven’t been conclusively ruled out, other interpretations become possible, if not more likely.