1. The Abstract and Methods state n=923n=923 (456 + 467), but Table 2, Table 3, and Figures 1–4 all report n=963n=963. Which is correct? This discrepancy undermines all reported analyses.
2. Table 3 contains a clear typo. For Instructor Intellectual Humility (Important course) under “Readings,” the value is listed as 0.90(0.04)∗. The text (H3) reports β=0.09. This is a typographical error in the table.
3. H4 text reports an impossible standardized coefficient. The text states “standardised β=0.89, p<0.01” for student intellectual humility in the most difficult course. Table 3 shows 0.09. A standardized beta of 0.89 is implausible for a single predictor in this SEM.
4. Model fit is mischaracterized as “good.” Table 1 shows Student IH Difficult: CFI = 0.930, TLI = 0.901; Student IH Important: CFI = 0.924, TLI = 0.892. These fall below Hu and Bentler’s (1999) criteria (CFI/TLI ≥ 0.95). Calling them “good fit values” is inaccurate.
5. Conclusion contradicts the results. The Conclusion states that “teacher expectations … related strongly to student and perceived teacher intellectual humility.” However, Table 3 shows teacher expectations did not relate to perceived teacher intellectual humility (β=−0.05, n.s.; β=−0.00, n.s.). This overstates the findings.
6. Text H3 contradicts Table 3. The text says reading assignments “were not significantly related to student intellectual humility in either the most difficult or most important courses.” Table 3 shows Student IH (Important course) for Readings = 0.06(0.04)∗, which carries an asterisk.
7. Text H5 contradicts Table 3. The text says perceived instructor intellectual humility “did not significantly differ by course” in either difficult or important courses. Table 3 shows Instructor IH (Important, STEMM) = −0.09(0.05)∗ and Instructor IH (Important, Social Sciences) = −0.09(0.05)∗, both with asterisks.
