“…Such specification searches have long been known to produce results that subsequent research typically fails to replicate (see MacCallum, 1986;MacCallum et al, 1992). A recent increase in dedicated software programs that automate specification searches (e.g., Brandmaier et al, 2016;Marcoulides and Falk, 2018;Gates et al, 2019) for the purpose of recommending additional model specification changes that would enhance fit exacerbates the concern that researchers are engaging in "HARKing" (hypothesizing after results are known), theoretically 6 Specifically, for the misspecified model shown in Figure 1, both Mplus and AMOS define a null model's df as the differences in df between the alternative (H A :) and null (H 0 :) baseline models as follows. In Mplus, the H A : baseline model has df values that are the sum of: 1) four variances, four means, and six covariances (14 total) among the response variables (i.e., Video Viewing, MLQ Self-Efficacy Posttest, MLQ Task Value Posttest, and Lab Report: Discussion), plus 2) all possible covariances between MLQ Self-Efficacy Posttest, MLQ Task Value Posttest, and Lab Report: Discussion with Video Viewing (six) plus all possible covariances between MLQ Self-Efficacy pretest, MLQ Task Value pretest, and Lawson's test of Scientific Reasoning with Video Viewing (six; 12 total) for an H A : baseline model total of df = (14 + 12) = 26.…”