撤回通知:领导变量与企业绩效:中介与交互效应

IF 5 3区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
{"title":"撤回通知:领导变量与企业绩效:中介与交互效应","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

1. 扫描电镜分析和报告结果的估计是不准确的,导致不同的统计结论。2. CFA和卡方分析中的自由度数量是不准确的,需要重新检查。3.模型比较和卡方差异检验是不准确的——我们报告的所有卡方差异都不显著,而它们都应该是显著的(卡方值范围从5.59到19.13,具有一个自由度)。4. 围绕数据建模的选择出现了问题,允许对数据的不同潜在解释,包括比文章中报告的更大数量的直接路径是重要的。5. 表5、表6和表7对于每个结果变量都是相同的,包括三个常量是相同的,这是不应该的。6. 三方互动效应的测试很可能是不正确的。对于每个结果,双向和三方交互项都是正的和显著的,这与三方交互图的模式不匹配。每个图中显示的截距平均值也以统计上不可能的方式偏离焦点结果变量的报告平均值。7. 表4中关于间接影响的报告是不正确的,因为在许多情况下,估计的间接影响超出了报告的95%置信区间,这是不应该的。收缩
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
RETRACTION NOTICE: Leadership Variables and Business Performance: Mediating and Interaction Effects
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
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
2.10%
发文量
23
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信