We examine 244 independent tests of interaction effects published in recent issues of four leading journals in the organizational sciences in order to estimate the replicability of reported statistically significant interaction effects. A z-curve analysis (Brunner & Schimmack, 2020) of the distribution of p values indicates an estimated replicability of 37%, although this figure varied somewhat across the four journals. We also find that none of the coded studies reported having conducted a priori power analyses and that only one reported having preregistered their hypotheses-despite longstanding exhortations for researchers to plan their studies to have adequate power and to engage in open science practices. Our results suggest that moderation results that have been reported in these leading journals fail to meet the methodological and statistical burden that would lead us to recommend that scientists and practitioners rely on these findings to inform their research and practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

一切都很好，复制得很好：领先的组织科学期刊中报告的调节和交互效应的可复制性。


我们检查了组织科学领域四家领先期刊最近几期发表的 244 项交互效应独立测试，以估计报告的具有统计学意义的交互效应的可复制性。对p值分布的z曲线分析（Brunner & Schimmack，2020）显示估计的可复制性为37%，尽管这个数字在四个期刊中有些不同。我们还发现，没有一项编码研究报告进行了先验功效分析，只有一项报告预先注册了他们的假设——尽管长期以来一直劝诫研究人员规划他们的研究以获得足够的功效并参与开放科学实践。我们的结果表明，在这些领先期刊上报道的适度结果无法满足方法论和统计负担，而这些负担将导致我们建议科学家和从业者依靠这些发现来为他们的研究和实践提供信息。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 （c） 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。