Reports an error in "The relationship between religiousness and health among sexual minorities: A meta-analysis" by G. Tyler Lefevor, Edward B. Davis, Jaqueline Y. Paiz and Abigail C. P. Smack (Psychological Bulletin, Advanced Online Publication, Apr 01, 2021, np). In the article, there was an error in the calculation of the effect sizes from one study. The three effect sizes for Wolff et al. (2016) listed in Table B1 of the online supplemental materials should have been "r = .09, r = -.02, r = -.05," rather than "r = -.18, r = .53, r = -.35." We rechecked the calculations for other studies and effect sizes and found no additional errors. Further, analyses rerun with the revised data set resulted in no changes in significance for any analyses that included this study; hence, no conclusions were changed because of this error. In the article, the sentences in the final paragraph of the Statistical Analyses section that described this study as an outlier were deleted and replaced with "No such outliers were found." All versions of this article have been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2021-32474-001.) Meta-analyses suggest that religiousness/spirituality (R/S) is consistently and positively associated with health (average r = .15); however, the strength and direction of this relationship is much less clear among sexual minorities, and many sexual minorities experience tension related to R/S. To address this, we present results from the first meta-analysis of the relationship between R/S and health among sexual minorities. Using 279 effect sizes nested within 73 studies, multilevel meta-analyses suggest a small but positive overall relationship between R/S and health among sexual minorities (r = .05), with a substantial amount of residual heterogeneity. Moderator analyses clarify that this relationship is particularly positive when R/S is conceptualized as spirituality (r = .14) or as religious cognition (e.g., belief; r = .10). The relationship between R/S and health disappears or becomes negative when participants are sampled from sexual minority venues (e.g., bars/clubs; r = .01). Minority stress, structural stigma, and causal pathways theories provide some structure to understand results; however, none of these theories is able to explain results fully. We synthesize these theories to provide an initial theoretical explanation: the degree to which R/S promotes or harms sexual minorities' health depends on (a) where the individual is in their sexual identity development/integration; (b) what their current R/S beliefs, practices, and motivations are; and (c) how well their environmental circumstances support their sexual and/or religious identities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

“性少数群体的宗教信仰与健康之间的关系：荟萃分析”：对 Lefevor 等人的更正。（2021 年）。

在 G. Tyler Lefevor、Edward B. Davis、Jaqueline Y. Paiz 和 Abigail CP Smack 撰写的“性少数群体的宗教信仰与健康之间的关系：荟萃分析”中报告错误（心理公告，高级在线出版物，4 月 1 日， 2021 年，NP）。在文章中，一项研究的效应量计算存在错误。Wolff 等人的三种效应量。(2016) 在线补充材料表 B1 中列出的应该是“r = .09, r = -.02, r = -.05”，而不是“r = -.18, r = .53, r = -.35。” 我们重新检查了其他研究和效应大小的计算，没有发现额外的错误。此外，使用修订后的数据集重新进行分析导致包括本研究在内的任何分析的显着性没有变化；因此，由于这个错误，没有改变任何结论。在文章中，统计分析部分最后一段中将这项研究描述为异常值的句子被删除，并替换为“未发现此类异常值”。本文的所有版本均已更正。（原始文章的以下摘要出现在记录 2021-32474-001 中。）荟萃分析表明，宗教性/灵性 (R/S) 始终与健康呈正相关（平均 r = .15）；然而，这种关系的强度和方向在性少数群体中不太明确，许多性少数群体经历与 R/S 相关的紧张关系。为了解决这个问题，我们提出了对性少数群体中 R/S 与健康之间关系的第一次荟萃分析的结果。使用嵌套在 73 项研究中的 279 种效应量，多层次荟萃分析表明，性少数群体的 R/S 与健康之间存在小而积极的总体关系（r = .05），并存在大量残留异质性。调节分析阐明，当 R/S 被概念化为灵性（r = .14）或宗教认知（例如，信仰；r = .10）时，这种关系特别积极。当参与者从性少数场所（例如，酒吧/俱乐部；r = .01）中抽样时，R/S 与健康之间的关系消失或变为负数。少数压力、结构性耻辱和因果路径理论为理解结果提供了一些结构；然而，这些理论都不能完全解释结果。我们综合这些理论以提供初步的理论解释：R/S 促进或损害性少数群体健康的程度取决于 (a) 个人在其性认同发展/整合中的位置；(b) 他们目前的 R/S 信念、实践和动机是什么；(c) 他们的环境状况如何支持他们的性和/或宗教身份。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2021 APA，保留所有权利）。