Meta-analysis: A constantly evolving research integration tool

Organizational Research Methods

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 96-113

  Schmidt, Frank ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

Fixed and random models; Meta analysis; Parameter estimation; Statistical artifacts

Indexed keywords

EID: 37149029226     PISSN: 10944281     EISSN: 15527425     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1094428107303161     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Aguinis, H., & Pierce, C.A. (1998). Testing moderator variable hypotheses meta-analytically. Journal of Management, 24, 577-592.
2. Aguinis, H., Sturman, M.C., & Pierce, C.A. (in press). Comparison of three meta-analytic procedures for estimating moderating effects of categorical variables. Organizational Research Methods.
3. Bechtel, W. (1988). Philosophy of science: An overview for cognitive science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4. Field, A.P. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. Psychological Methods, 6, 161-180.
5. Field, A.P. (2003). The problem in using fixed-effects models of meta-analysis on real world data. Understanding Statistics, 2, 77-96.
6. Field, A.P. (2005). Is the meta-analysis of correlation coefficients accurate when population correlations vary? Psychological Methods, 10, 444-467.
7. Hall, S.M., & Brannick, M.T. (2002). Comparison of two random effects methods of meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 469-477.
8. Hedges, L.V. (1994). Statistical considerations. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 29-38). New York: Russell Sage.
9. Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
10. Hedges, L.V., & Vevea, J.L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486-504.
11. Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12. Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (1994). The estimation of sampling error variance in meta-analysis of correlations: The homogeneous case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 171-177.
13. 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.
14. Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2 nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Hunter, J.E., Schmidt, F.L., & Jackson, G.B. (1982). Meta-analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
16. 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.
17. Kierein, N.M., & Gold, M.A. (2000). Pygmalion in work organizations: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 913-928.
18. Kisamore, J.L., & Brannick, M.T. (in press). An illustration of the consequences of meta-analysis model choice. Organizational Research Methods.
19. Law, K.S., Schmidt, F.L., & Hunter, J.E. (1994). A test of two refinements in meta-analysis procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 978-986.
20. Le, H., & Schmidt, F.L. (2006). Correcting for indirect range restriction in meta-analysis: Testing a new meta-analytic method. Psychological Methods, 11, 416-438.
21. Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D.B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181-1209.
22. McNatt, D.B. (2000). Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management: A meta-analysis of the result. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 314-322.
23. National Research Council. (1992). Combining information: Statistical issues and opportunities for research. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.
24. 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.
25. Phillips, D.C. (1987). Philosophy, science, and social inquiry. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
26. Raju, N.S., & Drasgow, F. (2003). Maximum likelihood estimation in validity generalization. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review (pp. 263-285). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Raudenbush, S.W. (1994). Random effects models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 301-322). New York: Russell Sage.
28. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (2 nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29. Rothstein, H.F., Sutton, A.J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustment. London: Wiley.
30. Sackett, P.R., Harris, M.M., & Orr, J.M. (1986). On seeking moderator variables in the meta-analysis of data: A Monte Carlo investigation statistical power and resistance to Type I error. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 302-310.
31. Sanchez-Meca, J., & Marin-Martinez, F. (1998). Weighting by inverse variance or by sample size in meta-analysis: A simulation study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 211-220.
32. Schmidt, F.L. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications for training of researchers. Psychological Methods, 1, 115-129.
33. 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.
34. Schmidt, F.L., Hunter, J.E., Pearlman, K., & Hirsh, H.R. (1985). Forty questions about validity generalization and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 697-798.
35. Schmidt, F.L., Hunter, J.E., & Urry, V. (1976). Statistical power in criterion-related validation studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 473-485.
36. Schmidt, F.L., Law, K., Hunter, J.E., Rothstein, H.R., Pearlman, K., & McDaniel, M. (1993). Refinements in validity generalization methods: Implications for the situational specificity hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 3-13.
37. Schmidt, F.L., & Le, H. (2004). Software for the Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis methods. Iowa City: University of Iowa, Department of Management & Organizations.
38. Schmidt, F.L., Oh, I.-S., & Hayes, T. (2006). Fixed vs. random effects models in meta-analysis: An empirical comparison of differences in results in the psychological literature. Manuscript submitted for publication.
39. Schmidt, F.L., Oh, I.-S., & Le, H. (2006). Increasing the accuracy of corrections for range restriction: Implications for selection procedure validities and other research results. Personnel Psychology, 59, 281-305.
40. Schmidt, F.L., & Raju, N.S. (2007). Updating meta-analytic research findings: Bayesian approaches versus the medical model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 297-308.
41. Schulze, R. (2004). Meta-analysis: A comparison of approaches. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber.
42. Steel, P.D.G., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. (in press). Bayesian variance estimation for meta-analysis: Quantifying our uncertainty. Organizational Research Methods.
43. Stewart, W.H., & Roth, P.L. (2001). Risk propensity differences between entrepreneurs and managers: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 145-153.
44. Thorndike, R.L. (1949). Personnel selection. New York: John Wiley.
45. Toulmin, S.S. (1961). Foresight and understanding: An enquiry into the aims of science. New York: Harper.
46. Wood, J. (in press). Methodology for dealing with duplicate study effects in a meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods.