In his article, "An Alternative to Null-Hypothesis Significance Tests," Killeen (2005) urged the discipline to abandon the practice of "p[subscript obs]"-based null hypothesis testing and to quantify the signal-to-noise characteristics of experimental outcomes with replication probabilities. He described the coefficient that he invented, "p[subscript rep]," as the probability of obtaining "an effect of the same sign as that found in an original experiment" (Killeen, 2005, p. 346). The journal "Psychological Science" quickly came to encourage researchers to employ "p[subscript rep]," rather than "p[subscript obs]," in the reporting of their experimental findings. In the current article, we (a) establish that Killeen's derivation of "p[subscript rep]" contains an error, the result of which is that "p[subscript rep]" is not, in fact, the probability that Killeen set out to derive; (b) establish that "p[subscript rep]" is not a replication probability of any kind but, rather, is a quasi-power coefficient; and (c) suggest that Killeen has mischaracterized both the relationship between replication probabilities and statistical inference, and the kinds of claims that are licensed by knowledge of the value assumed by the replication probability that he attempted to derive. (Contains 10 footnotes and 4 figures.)