Replication studies in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If these studies use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data-collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replication studies from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) for which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection; only one of these studies had yielded a statistically significant effect ( p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate the original effects. We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replication studies. We administered the RP:P and revised protocols in multiple laboratories (median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5, range = 3–9; median total sample = 1,279.5, range = 276–3,512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, following the preregistered analysis plan, we found that the revised protocols produced effect sizes similar to those of the RP:P protocols (Δ r = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for the revised protocols ( r = .05) was similar to that of the RP:P protocols ( r = .04) and the original RP:P replications ( r = .11), and smaller than that of the original studies ( r = .37). Analysis of the cumulative evidence across the original studies and the corresponding three replication attempts provided very precise estimates of the 10 tested effects and indicated that their effect sizes (median r = .07, range = .00–.15) were 78% smaller, on average, than the original effect sizes (median r = .37, range = .19–.50).

This study seeks to understand the effects of service learning on both young children and college students. Subsequently, quantitative and qualitative methods are employed to gain insight into how service learning coupled with a photovoice methodology can provide an empowering pedagogical practice for participants. Through the use of a Qualtrics survey and photovoice methods, this study examines the effects of service learning sampling 25 preschool age children and 39 undergraduate college students. Findings of this study provide an understanding and a platform for young children and college students to share their thoughts on service learning. Through reflection and dialogue from the participants, we begin to understand how alternative methods to education move beyond the realm of the classroom and collectively into the hands of the teacher, young children, and college students.

An exploratory analysis is conducted across 3 years on school exclusionary disciplinary practices from all 56 high schools in one district. Using geographical information systems mapping and other statistical analysis, this study analyzes how socioeconomic status, racial composition, and geographical region relate to a school's usage of exclusionary discipline. Results show that opportunity transfer, suspension, and expulsion rates vary within the district with the lowest exclusionary practices in high income areas and highest in low income areas. Findings suggest that suspensions are correlated with opportunity transfers and expulsions. However, there is no linear relation between opportunity transfers and expulsions. Poverty, student race/ethnic composition at school site, and school year are found to be predictors of exclusionary practices. Implications for future research are considered.

This study explores how community socioeconomic status (SES), geographical location, and administrator perspectives influence the implementation of exclusionary disciplinary policies. Using Geographical Information Systems mapping technology, in-depth interviewing, and document analysis, this study finds that schools located in high SES sectors have higher rates of exclusionary disciplinary practices, whereas schools located in low SES sectors have lower levels. The findings also indicate five normative values that influence leadership’s decisions to exclude students more frequently. These guiding belief systems include productive efficiency, equality versus equity, the potential of legal liability, prescribing to a cultural deficit ideology, and the notion of strict surveillance.

Replication efforts in psychological science sometimes fail to replicate prior findings. If replications use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the replication protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replications from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) in which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection and only one of which was “statistically significant” (p &lt; .05). Commenters on RP:P suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these failed to replicate (Gilbert et al., 2016). We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replications. We administered the RP:P and Revised replication protocols in multiple laboratories (Median number of laboratories per original study = XX; Range XX to YY; Median total sample = XX; Range XX to YY) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, XX of 10 RP:P protocols and XX of 10 Revised protocols showed significant evidence in the same direction as the original finding (p &lt; .05), compared to an expected XX. The median effect size was [larger/smaller/similar] for Revised protocols (ES = .XX) compared to RP:P protocols (ES = .XX), and [larger/smaller/similar] compared to the original studies (ES = .XX) and [larger/smaller/similar] compared to the original RP:P replications (ES = .XX). Overall, Revised protocols produced [much larger/somewhat larger/similar] effect sizes compared to RP:P protocols (ES = .XX). We also elicited peer beliefs about the replications through prediction markets and surveys of a group of researchers in psychology. The peer researchers predicted that the Revised protocols would [decrease/not affect/increase] the replication rate, [consistent with/not consistent with] the observed replication results. The results suggest that the lack of replicability of these findings observed in RP:P was [partly/completely/not] due to discrepancies in the RP:P protocols that could be resolved with expert peer review.