On reconciling conflicting meta-analytic findings regarding integrity test validity

The Journal of Applied Psychology
Paul R Sackett, Neal Schmitt

Abstract

We react to the Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau (2012a) meta-analysis of the relationship between integrity test scores and work-related criteria, the earlier Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (1993) meta-analysis of those relationships, the Harris et al. (2012) and Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (2012) responses, and the Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau (2012b) rebuttal. We highlight differences between the findings of the 2 meta-analyses by focusing on studies that used predictive designs, applicant samples, and non-self-report criteria. We conclude that study exclusion criteria, correction for artifacts, and second order sampling error are not likely explanations for the differences in findings. The lack of detailed documentation of all effect size estimates used in either meta-analysis makes it impossible to ascertain the bases for the differences in findings. We call for increased detail in meta-analytic reporting and for better information sharing among the parties producing and meta-analytically integrating validity evidence.

Citations

Sep 21, 2013·Annual Review of Psychology·Ann Marie Ryan, Robert E Ployhart

❮ Previous
Next ❯

Related Concepts

Related Feeds

Autoimmune Polyendocrinopathies

Autoimmune polyendocrinopathies, also called polyglandular autoimmune syndromes (PGASs), or polyendocrine autoimmune syndromes(PASs), are a heterogeneous group of rare diseases characterized by autoimmune activity against more than one endocrine organ, although non-endocrine organs can be affected. Discover the latest research on autoimmune polyendocrinopathies here.

Autoimmune Polyendocrine Syndromes

This feed focuses on a rare genetic condition called Autoimmune Polyendocrine Syndromes, which are characterized by autoantibodies against multiple endocrine organs. This can lead to Type I Diabetes.