{"title":"RETRACTION NOTICE: Leadership Variables and Business Performance: Mediating and Interaction Effects","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/15480518211038219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"1. Estimates of the SEM analysis and the reported results are inaccurate, leading to different statistical conclusions. 2. The number of degrees of freedom in the CFA and Chi-square analyses are inaccurate and require re-examination. 3. The model comparisons and the Chi-square difference tests are inaccurate – we reported all Chi-square differences as insignificant, whereas all of them should be significant (Chi-square value ranged from 5.59 to 19.13 with one degree of freedom). 4. Issues arose around the choice of modelling the data, allowing for different potential interpretations of the data, including that a larger number of direct paths were significant than were reported in the article. 5. Tables 5, 6, and 7 are identical for each outcome variable, including the three constants being the same, which should not be. 6. The tests of the three-way interaction effects are likely incorrect. For each outcome, the two-way and three-way interaction terms are positive and significant, which do not match the patterns of the three-way interaction plots. The average of the intercepts shown in each plot also deviates from the reported mean of the focal outcome variable in a statistically impossible way. 7. The reports of the indirect effects in Table 4 are incorrect, as the estimated indirect effects are outside the reported 95% confidence intervals in many cases, which should not be. Retraction","PeriodicalId":51455,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","volume":"28 1","pages":"495 - 495"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518211038219","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
1. Estimates of the SEM analysis and the reported results are inaccurate, leading to different statistical conclusions. 2. The number of degrees of freedom in the CFA and Chi-square analyses are inaccurate and require re-examination. 3. The model comparisons and the Chi-square difference tests are inaccurate – we reported all Chi-square differences as insignificant, whereas all of them should be significant (Chi-square value ranged from 5.59 to 19.13 with one degree of freedom). 4. Issues arose around the choice of modelling the data, allowing for different potential interpretations of the data, including that a larger number of direct paths were significant than were reported in the article. 5. Tables 5, 6, and 7 are identical for each outcome variable, including the three constants being the same, which should not be. 6. The tests of the three-way interaction effects are likely incorrect. For each outcome, the two-way and three-way interaction terms are positive and significant, which do not match the patterns of the three-way interaction plots. The average of the intercepts shown in each plot also deviates from the reported mean of the focal outcome variable in a statistically impossible way. 7. The reports of the indirect effects in Table 4 are incorrect, as the estimated indirect effects are outside the reported 95% confidence intervals in many cases, which should not be. Retraction