A U.S. version of the affirmative-action replication study essentially reproduced the original result, but the Open Science Collaboration excluded this successful U.S. replication and included only the failed University of Amsterdam replication in its estimate of psychology's reproducibility.
Notes on verification
Core factual claim (Amsterdam replication failed, Stanford replication succeeded, OSC used only Amsterdam result) is corroborated by AP/Daily Progress and Slate reporting and traces to a Science technical comment by Gilbert et al. However, OSC/Nosek team disputed the broader interpretive implications in a formal response, so while the specific factual sequence is well-supported, the framing as a methodological flaw in OSC's overall estimate remains contested among researchers. [tier=gold indep_score=0.867 clusters=3 claim_tier=notable]
Sources
- Study that undercut psych research got it wrong (seed:psychology_and_neuroscience)
- https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/03/psychology-study-that-induced-the-reproducibility-crisis-was-wrong-researchers-say.html (corroboration)
- https://dailyprogress.com/news/national/errors-riddled-study-on-psychology-research-uva-and-harvard-scientists/article_9aac81b4-e213-11e5-89ae-d7e8dd81dd80.html (corroboration)
- https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aad9163 (corroboration)