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

Journal of Business and Psychology

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 123-143

  Kepes, Sven ^a   McDaniel, Michael A ^a   Brannick, Michael T ^b   Banks, George C ^c  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^c LONGWOOD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Hedges and Olkin tradition of meta analysis; Medical sciences; Organizational sciences; Psychometric meta analysis; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877759048     PISSN: 08893268     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10869-013-9300-2     Document Type: Article

References (125)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American psychological association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Böhning, D. (2000). Computer-assisted analysis of mixtures and applications: Meta-analysis, disease mapping and others. Boca Ratton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
19. Bonett, D. G. (2008). Meta-analytic interval estimation for Pearson correlations. Psychological Methods, 13, 173-189. doi: 10. 1037/a0012868.
20. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2). Englewood: Biostat.
21. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex: Wiley.
22. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. (in press). Computing effect sizes for meta-analysis. West Sussex: Wiley.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
32. 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.
33. Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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.
37. DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7, 177-188. doi: 10. 1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Edwards, W., Lindman, H., & Savage, L. J. (1963). Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychological Review, 70, 193-242. doi: 10. 1037/h0044139.
41. Egger, M., Smith, G. D., & Altman, D. (2001a). Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context (2nd ed.). London: BMJ Books.
42. 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.
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. 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.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Greenwald, A. G. (1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 1-20. doi: 10. 1037/h0076157.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.
56. 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.
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. 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.
62. 2 index? Psychological Methods, 11, 193-206. doi: 10. 1037/1082-989x. 11. 2. 193.
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.
66. 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.
67. Indrayan, A. (2008). Medical biostatistics (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
68. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2010). Meta-research: The art of getting it wrong. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 169-184. doi: 10. 1002/jrsm. 19.
69. Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport: Praeger.
70. 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.
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
84. 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.
85. 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.
86. 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.
87. 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.
88. 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.
89. 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.
90. 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.
91. 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.
92. Park, T.-Y., & Shaw, J. D. (in press). Turnover rates and organizational performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. doi: 10. 1037/a0030723.
93. 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.
94. 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.
95. 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.
96. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (1985). Empirical Bayes meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 10, 75-98. doi: 10. 2307/1164836.
97. Renkewitz, F., Fuchs, H. M., & Fiedler, S. (2011). Is there evidence of publication biases in JDM research? Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 870-881.
98. 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.
99. 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.
100. Rosenthal R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Revised ed.). Newbury Park: Sage.
101. Roth, P. L. (2008). Software review: Hunter-Schmidt meta-analysis programs 1. 1. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 192-196. doi: 10. 1177/1094428106298972.
102. 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.
103. 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.
104. 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.
105. Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005b). Publication bias in meta analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments. West Sussex: Wiley.
106. 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.
107. 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.
108. 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.
109. 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.
110. Schulze, R. (2004). Meta-analysis: A comparison of approaches. Cambridge: Hogrefe & Huber.
111. Slavin, R. E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 15, 5-11. doi: 10. 3102/0013189X015009005.
112. 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.
113. 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.
114. 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.
115. 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.
116. 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.
117. Sutton, A. J., Abrams, K. R., Jones, D. R., Sheldon, T. A., & Song, F. (2000). Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. London: Wiley.
118. 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.
119. 2? Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 679-682. doi: 10. 1037/0021-9010. 73. 4. 679.
120. 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.
121. 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.
122. Viechtbauer, W. (2007). Confidence intervals for the amount of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 37-52. doi: 10. 1002/sim. 2514.
123. 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.
124. 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.
125. 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.