nach oben

Journal of Business and Psychology

Erschienen in:

01.06.2013

Meta-analytic Reviews in the Organizational Sciences: Two Meta-analytic Schools on the Way to MARS (the Meta-analytic Reporting Standards)

verfasst von: Sven Kepes, Michael A. McDaniel, Michael T. Brannick, George C. Banks

Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology | Ausgabe 2/2013

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to review the Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (MARS) of the American Psychological Association (APA) and highlight opportunities for improvement of meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences.

Design/Methodology/Approach

The paper reviews MARS, describes “best” meta-analytic practices across two schools of meta-analysis, and shows how implementing such practices helps achieve the aims set forth in MARS. Examples of best practices are provided to aid readers in finding models for their own research.

Implications/Value

Meta-analytic reviews are a primary avenue for the accumulation of knowledge in the organizational sciences as well as many other areas of science. Unfortunately, many meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences do not fully follow professional guidelines and standards as closely as they should. Such deviations from best practice undermine the transparency and replicability of the reviews and thus their usefulness for the generation of cumulative knowledge and evidence-based practice. This study shows how implementing “best” meta-analytic practices helps to achieve the aims set forth in MARS. Although the paper is written primarily for organizational scientists, the paper’s recommendations are not limited to any particular scientific domain.

Nächster Artikel Reactions to Employer Policies Regarding Prescription Drugs and Medical Marijuana: The Role of Safety Sensitivity

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

We note that the table includes some exemplar models that do not fully comply with a specific recommendation. However, even the ones that do not fully comply with a specific recommendation provide more information than the typical meta-analytic review in the organizational sciences and, as such, can serve as an exemplar model.

In meta-analytic studies, the terms studies and samples are often used interchangeably. We use the term samples throughout this manuscript because a single study can contain multiple samples.

In the medical sciences, many top-tier journals preclude the publication of clinical trials unless they were registered prior to completion (Berlin and Ghersi 2005; Laine et al. 2007).

Most statistical considerations we discuss in the context of correlation coefficients also apply to other effect size statistics such as standardized mean differences. Formulae for other effect sizes are available in the respective literatures (e.g., Borenstein et al. 2009; Hedges and Olkin 1985; Hedges and Vevea 1998; Hunter and Schmidt 2004).

We note that there are also models described as ‘mixed-effects’ (e.g., Raudenbush and Bryk 1985). Because these models contain terms for the residual variance in underlying effect sizes, we classify them as random-effects models for the purposes of this paper.

We note that there is little difference in estimates of the mean between both weighting schemes for the majority of effect size statistics in the organizational sciences (e.g., correlations and standardized mean differences). Conceptually, given the determinants of the variance in binary data, for effect size indices such as the odds ratio, the differences can be noticeable, favoring the inverse variance weights (Borenstein et al. 2009; Indrayan 2008; Sutton et al. 2000).

However, as mentioned previously, corrections for statistical artifacts are possible in the H&O meta-analytic approach (e.g., Aguinis and Pierce 1998; Borenstein et al. 2009; Hall and Brannick 2002; Hedges and Olkin 1985; Lipsey and Wilson 2001).

We recommended the reporting confidence intervals for the meta-analytic mean effect size as well as the computation of the REVC and its confidence interval (Viechtbauer 2007). We prefer the reporting of the prediction interval over the credibility interval.

For instance, conceptually and computationally, meta-analyses with smaller sample sizes per sample will have smaller I ² indices, on average, due to greater sampling error variance than will meta-analyses with large sample sizes per sample due to smaller sampling error variance, even if their between-sample variability (e.g., moderator variance) is identical. Hunter and Schmidt’s 75 % rule shares this problem because a given ‘true’ variance of the meta-analytically derived effect size will be a larger percentage of the total variance as the sample size of the primary samples increases.

We note that the WLS regression procedures in the H&O approach use the inverse variance weight, and the estimation procedure for the standard errors differs from that of regular WLS regression estimation procedures. Thus, standard WLS techniques in software packages such as SPSS and SAS cannot be used to accurately estimate the regression model (Hedges and Olkin 1985), even when appropriate weighting is used. D. Wilson provides computationally correct macros for meta-regression (http://mason.gmu.edu/~dwilsonb/ma.html).

Aguinis, H., & Pierce, C. A. (1998). Testing moderator variable hypotheses meta-analytically. Journal of Management, 24, 577–592. doi:10.1016/s0149-2063(99)80074-9.

Aguinis, H., Dalton, D. R., Bosco, F. A., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, C. M. (2011). Meta-analytic choices and judgment calls: Implications for theory building and testing, obtained effect sizes, and scholarly impact. Journal of Management, 37, 5–38. doi:10.1177/0149206310377113.CrossRef

American Psychological Association. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be? American Psychologist, 63, 839–851. doi:810.1037/0003-1066X.1063.1039.1839.CrossRef

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American psychological association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Aytug, Z. G., Rothstein, H. R., Zhou, W., & Kern, M. C. (2011). Revealed or concealed? Transparency of procedures, decisions, and judgment calls in meta-analyses. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 103–133. doi:10.1177/1094428111403495.

Baltes, B. B., Briggs, T. E., Huff, J. W., Wright, J. A., & Neuman, G. A. (1999). Flexible and compressed workweek schedules: A meta-analysis of their effects on work-related criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 496–513. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.4.496.CrossRef

Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2011). The kryptonite of evidence-based I–O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 40–44. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01292.x.CrossRef

Banks, G. C., Batchelor, J. H., & McDaniel, M. A. (2010). Smarter people are (a bit) more symmetrical: A meta-analysis of the relationship between intelligence and fluctuating asymmetry. Intelligence, 38, 393–401. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2010.04.003.CrossRef

Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & Banks, K. P. (2012a). Publication bias: The antagonist of meta-analytic reviews and effective policy making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 259–277. doi:10.3102/0162373712446144.CrossRef

Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012b). Publication bias: A call for improved meta-analytic practice in the organizational sciences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 182–196. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00591.x.CrossRef

Bax, L., Yu, L.-M., Ikeda, N., Tsuruta, N., & Moons, K. G. (2006). Development and validation of MIX: Comprehensive free software for meta-analysis of causal research data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 50. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-50.PubMedCrossRef

Bax, L., Yu, L.-M., Ikeda, N., & Moons, K. G. (2007). A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7, 40–48. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-40.PubMedCrossRef

Beal, D. J., Corey, D. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (2002). On the bias of Huffcutt and Arthur’s (1995) procedure for identifying outliers in the meta-analysis of correlations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 583–589. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.583.PubMedCrossRef

Becker, B. J. (2005). The failsafe N or file-drawer number. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 111–126). West Sussex: Wiley.

Berlin, J. A., & Ghersi, D. (2005). Preventing publication bias: Registeries and prospective metaanalysis. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments. West Sussex: Wiley.

Berman, N. G., & Parker, R. A. (2002). Meta-analysis: Neither quick nor easy. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2, 10. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-2-12.PubMedCrossRef

Bobko, P., & Roth, P. L. (2008). Psychometric accuracy and (the continuing need for) quality thinking in meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 114–126. doi:10.1177/1094428107303155.CrossRef

Böhning, D. (2000). Computer-assisted analysis of mixtures and applications: Meta-analysis, disease mapping and others. Boca Ratton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.

Bonett, D. G. (2008). Meta-analytic interval estimation for Pearson correlations. Psychological Methods, 13, 173–189. doi:10.1037/a0012868.PubMedCrossRef

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2). Englewood: Biostat.

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex: Wiley.CrossRef

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. (in press). Computing effect sizes for meta-analysis. West Sussex: Wiley.

Brannick, M. T. (2001). Implications of empirical Bayes meta-analysis for test validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 468–480. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.468.PubMedCrossRef

Brannick, M. T., Yang, L.-Q., & Cafri, G. (2011). Comparison of weights for meta-analysis of r and d under realistic conditions. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 587–607. doi:10.1177/1094428110368725.CrossRef

Briner, R. B., & Denyer, D. (2012). Systematic review and evidence synthesis as a practice and scholarship tool. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based management. New York: Oxford University Press.

Briner, R. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (2011). Evidence-based I–O psychology: Not there yet. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 3–22. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01287.x.CrossRef

Cafri, G., Kromrey, J. D., & Brannick, M. T. (2010). A meta-meta-analysis: Empirical review of statistical power, type I error rates, effect sizes, and model selection of meta-analyses published in psychology. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 239–270. doi:10.1080/00273171003680187.CrossRef

Carey, K. B., Scott-Sheldon, L. A. J., Carey, M. P., & DeMartini, K. S. (2007). Individual-level interventions to reduce college student drinking: A meta-analytic review. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 2469–2494. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.05.004.PubMedCrossRef

Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ Collaborators. (2005). Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: Prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. The Lancet, 366, 1267–1278. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)67394-1.CrossRef

Conn, V. S., Hafdahl, A. R., & Mehr, D. R. (2011). Interventions to increase physical activity among healthy adults: Meta-analysis of outcomes. American Journal of Public Health, 101, 751–758. doi:10.2105/ajph.2010.194381.PubMedCrossRef

Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (2009). Research synthesis as a scientific process. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 4–15). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Costanza, D. P., Badger, J. M., Fraser, R. L., Severt, J. B., & Gade, P. A. (2012). Generational differences in work-related attitudes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27, 375–394. doi:10.1007/s10869-012-9259-4.CrossRef

Crane, D. (1967). The gatekeepers of science: Some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals. The American Sociologist, 2, 195–201. doi:10.2307/27701277.

Dalton, D. R., Aguinis, H., Dalton, C. M., Bosco, F. A., & Pierce, C. A. (2012). Revisiting the file drawer problem in meta-analysis: An assessment of published and non-published correlation matrices. Personnel Psychology, 65, 221–249. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01243.x.CrossRef

DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7, 177–188. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.PubMedCrossRef

Dickerson, K. (2005). Publication bias: Recognizing the problem, understandings its origins and scope, and preventing harm. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 11–34). West Sussex: Wiley.

Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W. H., Liden, R. C., Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management, 38, 1715–1759. doi:10.1177/0149206311415280.CrossRef

Edwards, W., Lindman, H., & Savage, L. J. (1963). Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychological Review, 70, 193–242. doi:10.1037/h0044139.CrossRef

Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Altman, D. (2001a). Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context (2nd ed.). London: BMJ Books.CrossRef

Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & O’Rourke, K. (2001b). Rationale, potentials, and promise of systematic reviews. In M. Egger, G. D. Smith, & D. Altman (Eds.), Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context (2nd ed., pp. 3–22). London: BMJ Books.CrossRef

Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1975). Unit weighting schemes for decision making. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 13, 171–192. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(75)90044-6.CrossRef

Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103–127. doi:10.1037/a0018053.PubMedCrossRef

Evangelou, E., Trikalinos, T. A., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Unavailability of online supplementary scientific information from articles published in major journals. The FASEB Journal, 19, 1943–1944. doi:10.1096/fj.05-4784lsf.CrossRef

Field, A. P. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. Psychological Methods, 6, 161–180. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.2.161.PubMedCrossRef

Field, A. P. (2005). Is the meta-analysis of correlation coefficients accurate when population correlations vary? Psychological Methods, 10, 444–467. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.10.4.444.PubMedCrossRef

Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Cunha, P. V. (2009). A review and evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management research. Journal of Management, 35, 393–419. doi:10.1177/0149206308328501.CrossRef

Greenhouse, J. B., & Iyengar, S. (2009). Sensitivity analysis and diagnostics. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 417–433). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Greenwald, A. G. (1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 1–20. doi:10.1037/h0076157.CrossRef

Gurusamy, K., Aggarwal, R., Palanivelu, L., & Davidson, B. R. (2008). Systematic review of randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of virtual reality training for laparoscopic surgery. British Journal of Surgery, 95, 1088–1097. doi:10.1002/bjs.6344.PubMedCrossRef

Hafdahl, A. R., & Williams, M. A. (2009). Meta-analysis of correlations revisited: Attempted replication and extension of Field’s (2001) simulation studies. Psychological Methods, 14, 24–42. doi:10.1037/a0014697.PubMedCrossRef

Halbert, R. J., Natoli, J. L., Gano, A., Badamgarav, E., Buist, A. S., & Mannino, D. M. (2006). Global burden of COPD: Systematic review and meta-analysis. European Respiratory Journal, 28, 523–532. doi:10.1183/09031936.06.00124605.PubMedCrossRef

Hall, S. M., & Brannick, M. T. (2002). Comparison of two random-effects methods of meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 377–389. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.377.PubMedCrossRef

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.

Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486–504. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486.CrossRef

Hermelin, E., Lievens, F., & Robertson, I. T. (2007). The validity of assessment centres for the prediction of supervisory performance ratings: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 405–411. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00399.x.CrossRef

Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2009). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Version 5.0.2, updated September 2009). The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved from www.cochrane-handbook.org.

Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1539–1558. doi:10.1002/sim.1186.PubMedCrossRef

Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.PubMedCrossRef

Hoffman, B. J., Blair, C. A., Meriac, J. P., & Woehr, D. J. (2007). Expanding the criterion domain? A quantitative review of the OCB literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 555–566. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.555.PubMedCrossRef

Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006). Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I ² index? Psychological Methods, 11, 193–206. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.11.2.193.PubMedCrossRef

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1994). Estimation of sampling error variance in the meta-analysis of correlations: Use of average correlation in the homogeneous case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 171–177. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.2.171.CrossRef

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2000). Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: Implications for cumulative research knowledge. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 275–292. doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00156.CrossRef

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2006). Implications of direct and indirect range restriction for meta-analysis methods and findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 594–612. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.594.PubMedCrossRef

Indrayan, A. (2008). Medical biostatistics (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2010). Meta-research: The art of getting it wrong. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 169–184. doi:10.1002/jrsm.19.CrossRef

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport: Praeger.

Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376.PubMedCrossRef

Kamdi, A. S., Kandavalli, N. B., Emusu, D., Jain, N., Mamtani, M., & Porterfield, J. R. (2011). Weak or absent evidence for the association of HLA-DR antigens with risk of thyroid carcinoma: A meta-analysis of observational studies. Tissue Antigens, 78, 382–389. doi:10.1111/j.1399-0039.2011.01754.x.PubMedCrossRef

Kemery, E. R., Mossholder, K. W., & Dunlap, W. P. (1989). Meta-analysis and moderator variables: A cautionary note on transportability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 168–170. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.168.CrossRef

Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (in press). How trustworthy is the scientific literature in I-O psychology? Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice.

Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M. A., & Whetzel, D. L. (2012). Publication bias in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 624–662. doi:10.1177/1094428112452760.

Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., & Oh, I.-S. (in press). Avoiding bias in publication bias research: The value of “null” findings. Journal of Business and Psychology. doi:10.1007/s10869-012-9279-0.

Kisamore, J. L. (2008). Distributional shapes and validity transport: A comparison of lower bounds. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16, 27–29. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00406.x.CrossRef

Kisamore, J. L., & Brannick, M. T. (2008). An illustration of the consequences of meta-Analysis model choice. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 35–53. doi:10.1177/1094428106287393.CrossRef

Kuncel, N. R., Hezlett, S. A., & Ones, D. S. (2001). A comprehensive meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the graduate record examinations: Implications for graduate student selection and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 162–181. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.162.PubMedCrossRef

Laine, C., et al. (2007). Clinical trial registration: Looking back and moving ahead. New England Journal of Medicine, 356, 2734–2736. doi:10.1056/NEJMe078110.PubMedCrossRef

Law, K. S., Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1994a). Nonlinearity of range corrections in meta-analysis: Test of an improved procedure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 425–438. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.425.CrossRef

Law, K. S., Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1994b). A test of two refinements in procedures for meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 978–986. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.978.CrossRef

Le, H., Oh, I.-S., Shaffer, J., & Schmidt, F. L. (2007). Implications of methodological advances for the practice of personnel selection: How practitioners benefit from meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 6–15.CrossRef

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Marín-Martínez, F., & Sánchez-Meca, J. (2010). Weighting by inverse variance or by sample size in random-effects meta-analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 56–73. doi:10.1177/0013164409344534.CrossRef

McDaniel, M. A. (2005). Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence. Intelligence, 33, 337–346. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2004.11.005.CrossRef

McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994). The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 599–616. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.599.CrossRef

McDaniel, M. A., Rothstein, H. R., & Whetzel, D. L. (2006). Publication bias: A case study of four test vendors. Personnel Psychology, 59, 927–953. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00059.x.CrossRef

McDaniel, M. A., Hartman, N. S., Whetzel, D. L., & Grubb, W. L. (2007). Situational judgment tests, response instructions, and validity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 63–91. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00065.x.CrossRef

Miller, A. J., Worthington, E. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (2008). Gender and forgiveness: A meta-analytic review and research agenda. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27, 843–876. doi:10.1521/jscp.2008.27.8.843.CrossRef

Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 157–159. doi:10.2307/1164923.CrossRef

Overton, R. C. (1998). A comparison of fixed-effects and mixed (random-effects) models for meta-analysis tests of moderator variable effects. Psychological Methods, 3, 354–379. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.3.354.CrossRef

Park, T.-Y., & Shaw, J. D. (in press). Turnover rates and organizational performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0030723.

Puts, D. A., McDaniel, M. A., Jordan, C. L., & Breedlove, S. M. (2008). Spatial ability and prenatal androgens: Meta-analyses of congenital adrenal hyperplasia and digit ratio (2D:4D) studies. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37, 100–111. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9271-3.PubMedCrossRef

Raju, N. S., Burke, M. J., Normand, J., & Langlois, G. M. (1991). A new meta-analytic approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 432–446. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.3.432.CrossRef

Raudenbush, S. W. (1994). Random effects models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 301–321). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (1985). Empirical Bayes meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 10, 75–98. doi:10.2307/1164836.CrossRef

Renkewitz, F., Fuchs, H. M., & Fiedler, S. (2011). Is there evidence of publication biases in JDM research? Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 870–881.

Richardson, K. M., & Rothstein, H. R. (2008). Effects of occupational stress management intervention programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 69–93. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.13.1.69.PubMedCrossRef

Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638.CrossRef

Rosenthal R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Revised ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.

Roth, P. L. (2008). Software review: Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis programs 1.1. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 192–196. doi:10.1177/1094428106298972.CrossRef

Rothstein, H. R. (2003). Progress is our most important product: Contributions of validity generalization and meta-analysis to development communication of knowledge in I/O psychology. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review (pp. 115–154). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rothstein, H. R. (2012). Accessing relevant literature. In H. M. Cooper (Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics (Vol. 1, pp. 133–144). Washington: American Psychological Association.

Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005a). Publication bias in meta-analyses. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 1–7). West Sussex: Wiley.CrossRef

Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005b). Publication bias in meta analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments. West Sussex: Wiley.CrossRef

Sackett, P. R., Harris, M. M., & Orr, J. M. (1986). On seeking moderator variables in the meta-analysis of correlational data: a Monte Carlo investigation of statistical power and resistance to type I error. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 302–310. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.302.CrossRef

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 529–540. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.62.5.529.CrossRef

Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2003). History, development, evolution, and impact of validity generalization and meta-analysis methods, 1975–2001. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review (pp. 31–65). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I.-S., & Hayes, T. L. (2009). Fixed- versus random-effects models in meta-analysis: Model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 97–128. doi:10.1348/000711007x255327.PubMedCrossRef

Schulze, R. (2004). Meta-analysis: A comparison of approaches. Cambridge: Hogrefe & Huber.

Slavin, R. E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 15, 5–11. doi:10.3102/0013189X015009005.CrossRef

Spector, P. E., & Levine, E. L. (1987). Meta-analysis for integrating study outcomes: A Monte Carlo study of its susceptibility to type I and type II errors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 3–9. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.72.1.3.CrossRef

Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 96–111. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.96.PubMedCrossRef

Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2008). Bayesian variance estimation for meta-analysis: Quantifying our uncertainty. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 54–78. doi:10.1177/1094428107300339.CrossRef

Stone-Romero, E. F., & Anderson, L. E. (1994). Relative power of moderated multiple regression and the comparison of subgroup correlation coefficients for detecting moderating effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 354–359. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.3.354.CrossRef

Sutton, A. J. (2005). Evidence concerning the consequences of publication and related biases. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 175–192). West Sussex: Wiley.

Sutton, A. J., Abrams, K. R., Jones, D. R., Sheldon, T. A., & Song, F. (2000). Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. London: Wiley.

Terrizzi, J. A., Shook, N. J., & McDaniel, M. A. (2013). The behavioral immune system and social conservatism: A meta-analysis. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34, 99–108. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.10.003.

Thomas, H. (1988). What is the interpretation of the validity generalization estimate S _p ² = S _r ² − S _e ² ? Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 679–682. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.679.CrossRef

Thompson, S. G., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2002). How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1559–1573. doi:10.1002/sim.1187.PubMedCrossRef

Van Iddekinge, C. H., Roth, P. L., Raymark, P. H., & Odle-Dusseau, H. N. (2012). The criterion-related validity of integrity tests: An updated meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 499–530. doi:10.1037/a0021196.PubMedCrossRef

Viechtbauer, W. (2007). Confidence intervals for the amount of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 37–52. doi:10.1002/sim.2514.PubMedCrossRef

Viswesvaran, C., & Sanchez, J. I. (1998). Moderator search in meta-analysis: A review and cautionary note on existing approaches. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 77–87. doi:10.1177/0013164498058001007.CrossRef

White, H. D. (2009). Scientific communication and literature retrieval. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), Research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 51–71). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Whitener, E. M. (1990). Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 315–321. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.315.CrossRef

Titel: Meta-analytic Reviews in the Organizational Sciences: Two Meta-analytic Schools on the Way to MARS (the Meta-analytic Reporting Standards)
verfasst von: Sven Kepes
Michael A. McDaniel
Michael T. Brannick
George C. Banks
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2013
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology / Ausgabe 2/2013
Print ISSN: 0889-3268
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-353X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9300-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Design/Methodology/Approach

Implications/Value

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2013

Individual Employees’ Responses to Group Incentives: The Moderating Role of Innovation

Reactions to Employer Policies Regarding Prescription Drugs and Medical Marijuana: The Role of Safety Sensitivity

The Moderating Role of Locus of Causality in the Relationship Between Source of Information and Psychological Contract Breach Perceptions

Relationships Between Leader-Contingent and Non-contingent Reward and Punishment Behaviors and Subordinates’ Perceptions of Justice and Satisfaction, and Evaluation of the Moderating Influence of Trust Propensity, Pay Level, and Role Ambiguity

Shared Leadership and Innovation: The Role of Vertical Leadership and Employee Integrity

Relations of Interpersonal Unfairness with Counterproductive Work Behavior: The Moderating Role of Employee Self-Identity

Premium Partner