The graduate management admission test (GMAT) is even more valid than we thought: A new development in meta-analysis and its implications for the validity of the GMAT

Academy of Management Learning and Education

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 563-570

  Oh, In Sue ^a,c   Schmtdt, Frank L ^a   Shaffer, Jonathan A ^a   Le, Huy ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 61849159845     PISSN: 1537260X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5465/AMLE.2008.35882196     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Brogden, H. E. 1949. When testing pays off. Personnel Psychology. 2: 171-183.
2. Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. GMAC. 2007. Reliability and Validity of GMAT Scores Retrieved June 15, 2007 from (http://www.gmac.com/gmac/TheGMAT/GMATScores/ ReliabilityandValidityofGMATScores.htm.
4. Gropper, D. M. 2007. Does the GMAT matter for executive MBA students? Some empirical evidence. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 6: 206-216.
5. Gross, A., & McGanney, M. 1987. The restriction of range problem and nonignorable selection processes. Journal of Applied Psychology. 72: 604-610.
6. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt. F. L. 2004. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. 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.
8. Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. 2007. A meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the Graduate Management Test (GMAT) and undergraduate grade point average (UGPA) for graduate student academic performance. Academy of Management Learning Sc Education, 6(1): 51-68.
9. Kuncel, N. R., & Hezlett. S. A. 2007. Standardized tests predict graduate student success (supplementary material). Science, 315: 1080-1081.
10. Le, H., & Schmidt, F. L. 2006. Correcting for indirect range restriction in meta-analysis: Testing a new analytic procedure. Psychological Methods, 11: 416-438.
11. Linn, R. L., Hamish, D. L., & Dunbar, S. B. 1981. Corrections for range restriction: An empirical investigation of conditions resulting in conservative corrections. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 655-663.
12. Roth, P. L., DeVier, C., Switzer, F. S., III. & Shippmann. J. S. 1996. Meta-analyzing the relationship between grades and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 548-556.
13. Sackett, P. R., & Yang, H. 2000. Correction for range restriction: An expanded typology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 112-118.
14. Schmidt, F. L. 1993. Personnel psychology at the cutting edge. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organization: 497-515. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15. Schmidt, F. L. 2008. Meta-analysis: A constantly evolving research integration tool. Organizational Research Methods, 11:96-113.
16. Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I., & 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.
17. Thorndike, R. L. 1949. Personnel selection. New York: Wiley.
18. Wright, R. E., & Palmer, J. C. 1994. GMAT scores and undergraduate GPAs as predictors of performance in graduate business programs. Journal of Education for Business. 69: 344-348.