Will practitioners benefit from meta-analysis?

Academy of Management Perspectives

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 24-28

  Hauser, Robert M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35348856315     PISSN: 15589080     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5465/AMP.2007.26421236     Document Type: Note

References (14)

1. Cook, T. D. (1992). Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
2. Hauser, R. M. (2005). Survey response in the long run: The Wisconsin longitudinal study. Field Methods, 17, 3-29.
3. Hunt, M. M. (1997). How science takes stock: The story of meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
4. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5. Hunter, J., Jackson, G. B., & Schmidt, F. L. (1982). Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
6. Le, H., Oh, I., 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(3).
7. National Research Council. (2005). Measuring literacy: Performance levels for adults. Edited by R. M. Hauser, C. Edley, J. A. Koenig, & S. Elliot. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
8. National Research Council, Committee on Appropriate Test Use. (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Edited by J. P. Heubert & R. M. Hauser. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9. National Research Council, Committee on the General Aptitude Test Battery, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. (1989). Fairness in employment testing: Validity generalization, minority issues, and the general aptitude test battery. Edited by J. A. Hartigan & A. K. Wigdor. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
10. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1983). Individual differences in productivity: An empirical test of estimates derived from studies of selection procedure utility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 407-414.
11. Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., McKenzie, R. C., & Muldrow, T. W. (1979). Impact of valid selection procedures on work-force productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 609-626.
12. Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., Outerbridge, A. N., & Trattner, M. H. (1986). The economic impact of job selection methods on size, productivity, and payroll costs of the federal work force: An empirically based demonstration. Personnel Psychology, 39, 1-29.
13. Sewell, W. H., Hauser, R. M., Springer, K. W., & Hauser, T. S. (2004). As we age: The Wisconsin longitudinal study, 1957-2001. In K. Leicht (Ed.), Research in Social Stratification and Mobility (pp. 3-111, vol. 20). London: Elsevier.
14. Wachter, K. W., & Straf, M. L. (1990). The future of meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.