When we compared the replication rates of the endorsed and unendorsed protocols, we discovered that the endorsed protocols were nearly four times as likely to produce a successful replication (59.7%) as were the unendorsed protocols (15.4%).
This strongly suggests that the infidelities did not just introduce random error but instead biased the replication studies toward failure. If OSC had limited their analyses to endorsed studies, they would have found that 59.7% [95% confidence interval (CI): 47.5%, 70.9%] were replicated successfully.
In fact, we estimate that if all the replication studies had been high enough in fidelity to earn the endorsement of the original authors, then the rate of successful replication would have been 58.6% (95% CI: 47.0%, 69.5%) when controlling for relevant covariates.
Remarkably, the CIs of these estimates actually overlap the 65.5% replication rate that one would expect if every one of the original studies had reported a true effect.
Although that seems rather unlikely, OSC’s data clearly provide no evidence for a “replication crisis” in psychological science.
60%? Gee, I'm so impressed! Crisis over!
Breaking this up, to much freaking text in a large block!
GG