This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier policy on article withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/article-withdrawal).
This article has been retracted at the request of the editorial team.
The journals editorial team identified concerns of potential selective reporting and/or data manipulation given that only thirty-six out of seventy-four items from the articles survey (submitted with the manuscript) appeared to be included in analysis.
When contacted, the corresponding author provided the alleged original survey and corresponding raw data, which contained two additional variables and forty additional survey items not present in the previously submitted survey and the article. The journals editorial team and Elseviers Research Integrity & Publication Ethics team confirmed that there were inconsistencies between variables and survey items reported in the article (Table 2 and Figure 2), those present in the shared dataset, the questions present in the survey, and the authors response. Specifically:
-
A)
The articles variable SEB is missing eleven out of nineteen survey items (1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 19). In a first communication, the author stated that items 2 and 20 were dropped during EFA, and items 1, 4, 6, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, and 19 were dropped during CFA. In a second communication, the author stated that items 14 and 20 were dropped during EFA, and 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 15, 16, 18, and 19 were dropped during CFA. Adding to these inconsistencies, items 6 and 14 are not present in the dataset provided but present in the survey, while item 20 is not present in either the dataset or survey, raising the possibility of more data points being collected than the supposed 114 indicated on the survey.
-
B)
The articles variable FEE is missing six out of fifteen survey items (3, 5, 6, 10, 14, and 15). In a first communication, the author stated that items 3, 5, 6, 10, 14, and 15 were dropped during CFA. In a second communication, the author stated that item 6 was dropped during EFA and items 3, 5, 10, 14, and 15 were dropped during CFA. Item 6 is present in the survey but not in the provided dataset.
-
C)
The articles variable EL is missing eleven out of twenty survey items (1-4, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20). In a first communication, the author stated that items 13 and 20 were dropped during EFA, and items 1-4, 14, 16, 17, and 19 were dropped during CFA. In a second communication, the author stated that items 17, 19, and 20 were dropped during EFA and items 1-4, 7, 13, 16, and 17 were dropped during CFA. Survey items 17, 19, and 20 are not present in the shared dataset, and item 17 was listed twice in the analyses above.
-
D)
The articles variable ENL is missing ten out of twenty survey items (1, 3, 4, 7, 10-12, 16, 19, 20). In a first communication, the author stated that items 12 and 20 were dropped during EFA and 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, and 19 were dropped during CFA. In a second communication, the author stated that 1, 3, 4, 7, 10-11, and 19 were dropped during CFA.
Additionally, two entire variables are present in the original survey and dataset but excluded from the published survey. The author explained that the survey and dataset were part of a larger thesis but that the additional variables were not relevant for the article and are not reported anywhere else than the thesis.
Given the continued discrepancies in responses received from the authors regarding 1) which variables were omitted, 2) at which stage they were omitted, and 3) why they were omitted, as well as 4) the possibility of additional collected data omitted from any shared document, the editorial team no longer retains confidence in the validity of the results presented in this article.
The authors dispute the retraction of this article.