- Email: [email protected]
Retraction notice to “Early Life Experiences as Determinants of Leadership Role Occupancy: The Importance of Parental Influence and Rule Breaking Behavior” [The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 329–342]
The Leadership Quarterly 25 (2014) 1069–1070
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Leadership Quarterly journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua
Retraction Notice
Retraction notice to “Early Life Experiences as Determinants of Leadership Role Occupancy: The Importance of Parental Influence and Rule Breaking Behavior” [The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 329–342]☆,☆☆ Bruce J. Avolio a,⁎, Maria Rotundo b, Fred O. Walumbwa c a b c
Management and Organization Department, Michael G. Foster School of Business, P.O. Box 353200, Seattle, WA 98195-3200, USA Joseph L. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, 105 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3E6 Department of Management, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 874006, Tempe, AZ 85287-4006, USA
After concerns were raised about possible problems of reporting in this paper, the Senior Editor consulted with the two previous Senior Editors of The Leadership Quarterly and a methodologist (M1) (not the claimant) to assess the seriousness of the allegations and to make a preliminary determination concerning the allegations' merits. All concurred that there were serious problems in this paper. The methodologist (M1) prepared a report outlining the problems and this report was forwarded to a second methodologist (M2) to confirm the correctness of methods used by the first methodologist to detect the problems. The second methodologist attested to the correctness of the first methodologist's analyses. The Senior Editor then contacted the authors to inform them of the problems identified in the paper. The authors were asked to respond to concerns raised and encouraged to send the original data from this paper to the Senior Editor for reanalysis. The authors did not provide the original data but rather sent a letter replying to the methodology report, along with new analytic results. These responses and new results were reviewed by a third methodologist (M3) as well as the methodologist who prepared the report (M1). Both agreed that the reanalysis failed to replicate the results that were originally reported and their report further supported concerns about serious reporting errors, model misspecifications, and methodological misstatements and ambiguities in the published article. The Senior Editor has concluded that the model as stated in the published paper was not tested, thus compromising the scientific review process. In addition, results were not fully reported, some of which invalidated their models, and incorrect modeling procedures were followed. More specifically, based on the information reported, it appears that a one‐group model was employed for the SEM results shown in Fig. 4, given that the paper reported one set of estimates in the figures. However, when using the reported correlation matrix, SDs, and mean vector to reconstruct the variance–covariance matrix, it was not possible to reproduce the SEM model results depicted in Fig. 4 (as more fully described in the text); that is, the maximum likelihood estimator did not converge and gave an improper solution. In addition, fit statistics were incorrectly reported. In response to the concerns raised, the authors stated that they estimated a two group model for the model tested in Fig. 4. Based on the re‐analyses provided, they could not replicate the results originally published, and suggested that the model was invariant across the two groups. Based on the reanalyzed results it is apparent that the model reported to have been tested was not the one actually tested, for the following reasons. First, several disturbances of measurement items were correlated, as reported in the response and as was shown in the reanalyzed statistical output provided. The use of correlated disturbances was not mentioned in ☆ This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). ☆☆ This article has been retracted at the request of the Senior Editor. DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.015. ⁎ Corresponding author.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.07.006
1070
Retraction Notice
the paper, and it was unclear on what basis this was carried out, making it impossible for other researchers to follow what they did or to replicate their findings. This process of correlating disturbance terms increases model fit statistics and can compromise model estimates (cf. Brown, 2006; Gerbing & Anderson, 1984; Maccallum, Roznowski, & Necowitz, 1992; Steiger, 1990). Second, in the reanalysis, constraints were imposed on certain variances to be equal. It is not clear on what basis they specified some of these constraints and not others, and none of these constraints were reported in the article. In addition, the authors were unable to reproduce their own results, and state that the new results were consistent with those previously published. Close examination of the structural estimates shows some major differences that affect the substantive findings. For example, the paper reports a coefficient of −.28 (p b .01) for the path from serious rule breaking to leadership. However, reanalyzed results indicated that the unstandardized path was −.69 (SE = .346, z = −1.986, p = .047) and the standardized paths were −.44 and −.46 for the one and two group results, respectively. These results do not match those originally reported nor do the vast majority of the estimates in the re‐ analyzed data. The Senior Editor has also concluded that a serious error was made and it was repeated in the reanalysis: according to a figure supplied with the reanalyzed findings, standardized estimates are reported from the first group in the path diagram, also suggesting that the one set of results reported in the article were the standardized results from one of the groups. Standardized estimates should not be reported in multiple group analysis given that variances between groups may differ, which will thus confound the difference in estimates (Brown, 2006); instead, unstandardized estimates, which are the ones on which constraints are made in a multiple group analysis, should be reported. Third, with respect to which data were reported for the structural estimates, it is not clear from which model the estimates were obtained, because what was reported in the paper does not match the reanalyzed findings provided, whether looking at either the results of one or the other group. The fact that it is not clearly noted what estimates are being reported in the paper, and that these estimates were substantially different in their reanalysis, is problematic. Some estimates, were different by a factor of 400% (e.g., comparing the estimate reported in the paper to that of the standardized estimate for Group 1). It is stated in the article that the path from personality to leadership role occupancy was “β = .29, p b .01”; yet, the unstandardized path in the reanalysis goes in the opposite direction and is negative, − .09 (SE = .024, z = 3.801, p b .001), and both standardized paths are negative, −.87 (group 1) and −.91 (group 2). In their response, the authors stated that what estimates they did report for the relation between personality and both modest and serious rule breaking should have been negative instead of positive, and that this difference was due to a possible transcription error in the original article. Such uncertainty in reporting makes it unclear as to what was originally estimated. Based on how the findings in the paper were reported, the reader would assume that they had a well‐validated personality factor. However, based on the reanalysis, two out of the four loadings (aggression and harm avoidance) on the personality factor are not significant. This fact was not reported. The following is an explanation in the article as to why the estimates from the personality factor in Fig. 4 were not shown: “Although not shown in Fig. 4 for clarity purposes our results revealed positive paths from personality to modest rule breaking …serious rule breaking…and leadership role occupancy…”. Finally, the model estimated in the paper has very different fit statistics from that of the reanalysis. This issue, of inconsistent fit statistics, was not appropriately addressed in the reanalysis. As a consequence of the processes and concerns outlined above, the scientific trustworthiness and value of this work cannot be established. However, intentional wrongdoing should not be inferred. References Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press (http://www.guilford.com/books/Confirmatory-Factor-Analysis-forApplied-Research/Timothy-A-Brown/9781462515363). Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1984). On the meaning of within‐factor correlated measurement errors. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1), 572–580 (http://www. jstor.org/stable/2489144). Maccallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modification in covariance structure-analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111(3), 490–504http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.490. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180 http://dx.doi.org/10. 1207/s15327906mbr2502_4.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Leadership Quarterly journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/leaqua
Retraction Notice
Retraction notice to “Early Life Experiences as Determinants of Leadership Role Occupancy: The Importance of Parental Influence and Rule Breaking Behavior” [The Leadership Quarterly 20 (2009) 329–342]☆,☆☆ Bruce J. Avolio a,⁎, Maria Rotundo b, Fred O. Walumbwa c a b c
Management and Organization Department, Michael G. Foster School of Business, P.O. Box 353200, Seattle, WA 98195-3200, USA Joseph L. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, 105 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3E6 Department of Management, W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 874006, Tempe, AZ 85287-4006, USA
After concerns were raised about possible problems of reporting in this paper, the Senior Editor consulted with the two previous Senior Editors of The Leadership Quarterly and a methodologist (M1) (not the claimant) to assess the seriousness of the allegations and to make a preliminary determination concerning the allegations' merits. All concurred that there were serious problems in this paper. The methodologist (M1) prepared a report outlining the problems and this report was forwarded to a second methodologist (M2) to confirm the correctness of methods used by the first methodologist to detect the problems. The second methodologist attested to the correctness of the first methodologist's analyses. The Senior Editor then contacted the authors to inform them of the problems identified in the paper. The authors were asked to respond to concerns raised and encouraged to send the original data from this paper to the Senior Editor for reanalysis. The authors did not provide the original data but rather sent a letter replying to the methodology report, along with new analytic results. These responses and new results were reviewed by a third methodologist (M3) as well as the methodologist who prepared the report (M1). Both agreed that the reanalysis failed to replicate the results that were originally reported and their report further supported concerns about serious reporting errors, model misspecifications, and methodological misstatements and ambiguities in the published article. The Senior Editor has concluded that the model as stated in the published paper was not tested, thus compromising the scientific review process. In addition, results were not fully reported, some of which invalidated their models, and incorrect modeling procedures were followed. More specifically, based on the information reported, it appears that a one‐group model was employed for the SEM results shown in Fig. 4, given that the paper reported one set of estimates in the figures. However, when using the reported correlation matrix, SDs, and mean vector to reconstruct the variance–covariance matrix, it was not possible to reproduce the SEM model results depicted in Fig. 4 (as more fully described in the text); that is, the maximum likelihood estimator did not converge and gave an improper solution. In addition, fit statistics were incorrectly reported. In response to the concerns raised, the authors stated that they estimated a two group model for the model tested in Fig. 4. Based on the re‐analyses provided, they could not replicate the results originally published, and suggested that the model was invariant across the two groups. Based on the reanalyzed results it is apparent that the model reported to have been tested was not the one actually tested, for the following reasons. First, several disturbances of measurement items were correlated, as reported in the response and as was shown in the reanalyzed statistical output provided. The use of correlated disturbances was not mentioned in ☆ This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy). ☆☆ This article has been retracted at the request of the Senior Editor. DOI of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.015. ⁎ Corresponding author.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.07.006
1070
Retraction Notice
the paper, and it was unclear on what basis this was carried out, making it impossible for other researchers to follow what they did or to replicate their findings. This process of correlating disturbance terms increases model fit statistics and can compromise model estimates (cf. Brown, 2006; Gerbing & Anderson, 1984; Maccallum, Roznowski, & Necowitz, 1992; Steiger, 1990). Second, in the reanalysis, constraints were imposed on certain variances to be equal. It is not clear on what basis they specified some of these constraints and not others, and none of these constraints were reported in the article. In addition, the authors were unable to reproduce their own results, and state that the new results were consistent with those previously published. Close examination of the structural estimates shows some major differences that affect the substantive findings. For example, the paper reports a coefficient of −.28 (p b .01) for the path from serious rule breaking to leadership. However, reanalyzed results indicated that the unstandardized path was −.69 (SE = .346, z = −1.986, p = .047) and the standardized paths were −.44 and −.46 for the one and two group results, respectively. These results do not match those originally reported nor do the vast majority of the estimates in the re‐ analyzed data. The Senior Editor has also concluded that a serious error was made and it was repeated in the reanalysis: according to a figure supplied with the reanalyzed findings, standardized estimates are reported from the first group in the path diagram, also suggesting that the one set of results reported in the article were the standardized results from one of the groups. Standardized estimates should not be reported in multiple group analysis given that variances between groups may differ, which will thus confound the difference in estimates (Brown, 2006); instead, unstandardized estimates, which are the ones on which constraints are made in a multiple group analysis, should be reported. Third, with respect to which data were reported for the structural estimates, it is not clear from which model the estimates were obtained, because what was reported in the paper does not match the reanalyzed findings provided, whether looking at either the results of one or the other group. The fact that it is not clearly noted what estimates are being reported in the paper, and that these estimates were substantially different in their reanalysis, is problematic. Some estimates, were different by a factor of 400% (e.g., comparing the estimate reported in the paper to that of the standardized estimate for Group 1). It is stated in the article that the path from personality to leadership role occupancy was “β = .29, p b .01”; yet, the unstandardized path in the reanalysis goes in the opposite direction and is negative, − .09 (SE = .024, z = 3.801, p b .001), and both standardized paths are negative, −.87 (group 1) and −.91 (group 2). In their response, the authors stated that what estimates they did report for the relation between personality and both modest and serious rule breaking should have been negative instead of positive, and that this difference was due to a possible transcription error in the original article. Such uncertainty in reporting makes it unclear as to what was originally estimated. Based on how the findings in the paper were reported, the reader would assume that they had a well‐validated personality factor. However, based on the reanalysis, two out of the four loadings (aggression and harm avoidance) on the personality factor are not significant. This fact was not reported. The following is an explanation in the article as to why the estimates from the personality factor in Fig. 4 were not shown: “Although not shown in Fig. 4 for clarity purposes our results revealed positive paths from personality to modest rule breaking …serious rule breaking…and leadership role occupancy…”. Finally, the model estimated in the paper has very different fit statistics from that of the reanalysis. This issue, of inconsistent fit statistics, was not appropriately addressed in the reanalysis. As a consequence of the processes and concerns outlined above, the scientific trustworthiness and value of this work cannot be established. However, intentional wrongdoing should not be inferred. References Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press (http://www.guilford.com/books/Confirmatory-Factor-Analysis-forApplied-Research/Timothy-A-Brown/9781462515363). Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1984). On the meaning of within‐factor correlated measurement errors. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1), 572–580 (http://www. jstor.org/stable/2489144). Maccallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modification in covariance structure-analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111(3), 490–504http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.490. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180 http://dx.doi.org/10. 1207/s15327906mbr2502_4.