Reports an error in "What meta-analyses reveal about the replicability of psychological research" by T. D. Stanley, Evan C. Carter and Hristos Doucouliagos (Psychological Bulletin, 2018[Dec], Vol 144[12], 1325-1346). In the article, the Open Science Framework (OSF) URL for the data has now been included in the author note. The online version of this article has been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2018-51211-001.) Can recent failures to replicate psychological research be explained by typical magnitudes of statistical power, bias or heterogeneity? A large survey of 12,065 estimated effect sizes from 200 meta-analyses and nearly 8,000 papers is used to assess these key dimensions of replicability. First, our survey finds that psychological research is, on average, afflicted with low statistical power. The median of median power across these 200 areas of research is about 36%, and only about 8% of studies have adequate power (using Cohen's 80% convention). Second, the median proportion of the observed variation among reported effect sizes attributed to heterogeneity is 74% (I2). Heterogeneity of this magnitude makes it unlikely that the typical psychological study can be closely replicated when replication is defined as study-level null hypothesis significance testing. Third, the good news is that we find only a small amount of average residual reporting bias, allaying some of the often-expressed concerns about the reach of publication bias and questionable research practices. Nonetheless, the low power and high heterogeneity that our survey finds fully explain recent difficulties to replicate highly regarded psychological studies and reveal challenges for scientific progress in psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

“什么荟萃分析揭示了心理学研究的可重复性”：对斯坦利，卡特和杜古利亚格斯的更正（2018年）。

TD Stanley，Evan C. Carter和Hristos Doucouliagos在“什么荟萃分析揭示了心理学研究的可重复性”中报告了一个错误（心理公告，2018年12月，第144卷[12]，1325-1346）。在本文中，作者注释中已包含该数据的开放科学框架（OSF）URL。本文的在线版本已得到纠正。（原始文章的以下摘要出现在记录2018-51211-001中。）能否通过典型的统计能力，偏倚或异质性来解释近期未能复制心理研究的现象？对来自200项荟萃分析和近8,000篇论文的12,065个估计效应大小进行了大规模调查，以评估这些关键的复制能力维度。首先，我们的调查发现，平均而言，心理学研究 受统计能力低下的困扰。在这200个研究领域中，中位功效的中位数约为36％，只有约8％的研究具有足够的功效（使用科恩的80％惯例）。第二，归因于异质性的报告效应大小中观察到的变化的中位数比例为74％（I2）。当复制被定义为研究水平的虚假假设显着性检验时，如此大的异质性使得典型的心理学研究不太可能被紧密复制。第三，好消息是，我们发现只有少量的平均剩余报告偏差，从而消除了一些关于出版物偏差和可疑的研究实践的经常表达的担忧。尽管如此，我们的调查发现低功率和高异质性充分说明了最近在复制备受推崇的心理学研究方面遇到的困难，并揭示了心理学科学进步的挑战。（PsycINFO数据库记录（c）2019 APA，保留所有权利）。