1932

Abstract

Secondary uses of meta-analytic data (SUMAD) represent advanced analyses and applications of first-order meta-analytic results for theoretical (e.g., theory testing) and practical (e.g., evidence-based practice) purposes to produce novel knowledge that cannot be directly obtained from the input meta-analytic results. First-order meta-analytic results in the form of bivariate effect sizes have been used as input to such secondary analyses and applications. Given the increasing popularity of SUMAD in human resource management (HRM) and organizational behavior (OB), there is a need for a systematic review on this topic. This article has two primary goals. First, it reviews essential works regarding SUMAD in the fields of HRM/OB and provides taxonomies of SUMAD in theoretical and practical domains. Second, it introduces recent SUMAD and discusses future directions that encourage more innovative and rigorous research endeavors along this line.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045006
2020-01-21
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/orgpsych/7/1/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045006.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045006&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aguinis H, Beaty JC, Boik RJ, Pierce CA 2005. Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: a 30-year review. J. Appl. Psychol. 90:194–107
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aguinis H, Dalton DR, Bosco FA, Pierce CA, Dalton CM 2011. Meta-analytic choices and judgment calls: implications for theory building and testing, obtained effect sizes, and scholarly impact. J. Manag. 37:15–38
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aguinis H, Gottfredson RK, Wright TA 2011. Best‐practice recommendations for estimating interaction effects using meta‐analysis. J. Organ. Behav. 32:81033–43
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Allen DG, Bryant PC, Vardaman JM 2010. Retaining talent: replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 24:248–64
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Amrhein V, Greenland S, McShane B 2019. Retire statistical significance. Nature 567:305–7
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Azen R, Budescu DV. 2003. The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychol. Methods 8:2129–48
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Banks GC, Gooty J, Ross RL, Williams CE, Harrington NT 2018. Construct redundancy in leader behaviors: a review and agenda for the future. Leadersh. Q. 29:1236–51
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bannister BD, Griffeth RW. 1986. Applying a causal analytic framework to the Mobley, Horner, and Hollingsworth 1978 turnover model: a useful reexamination. J. Manag. 12:433–43
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Barrick MR, Mount MK. 1991. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta‐analysis. Pers. Psychol. 44:11–26
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Barrick MR, Mount MK, Judge TA 2001. Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 9:1–29–30
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Becker BJ. 1992. Using results from replicated studies to estimate linear models. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 17:4341–62
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Becker BJ. 2009. Model-based meta-analysis. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis H Cooper, LV Hedges, JC Valentine 377–95 New York: Russell Sage Found. , 2nd ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bergh DD, Aguinis H, Heavey C, Ketchen DJ, Boyd BK et al. 2016. Using meta‐analytic structural equation modeling to advance strategic management research: guidelines and an empirical illustration via the strategic leadership‐performance relationship. Strateg. Manag. J. 37:3477–97
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Berry CM, Lelchook AM, Clark MA 2012. A meta‐analysis of the interrelationships between employee lateness, absenteeism, and turnover: implications for models of withdrawal behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 33:5678–99
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Blumenthal JA. 2007. Meta-analysis: a primer for legal scholars. Temple Law Rev 80:201–44
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bobko P, Roth PL, Potosky D 1999. Derivation and implications of a meta‐analytic matrix incorporating cognitive ability, alternative predictors, and job performance. Pers. Psychol. 52:3561–89
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bosco FA, Aguinis H, Singh K, Field JG, Pierce CA 2015a. Correlational effect size benchmarks. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:2431–49
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bosco FA, Steel P, Oswald FL, Uggerslev KL, Field JG 2015b. Cloud-based meta-analysis to bridge science and practice: Welcome to metaBUS. Pers. Assess. Decisions 1:3–17
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bosco FA, Uggerslev KL, Steel P 2017. MetaBUS as a vehicle for facilitating meta-analysis. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 27:1237–54
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Brandmaier AM, Oertzen TV, McArdle JJ, Lindenberger U 2013. Structural equation model trees. Psychol. Methods 18:171–86
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Brannick MT, Potter S, Teng Y 2019. Quantifying uncertainty in the meta-analytic lower bound estimate. Psychol. Methods. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Braun MT, Converse PD, Oswald FL 2019. The accuracy of dominance analysis as a metric to assess relative importance: The joint impact of sampling error variance and measurement unreliability. J. Appl. Psychol. 104:4593–602
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Budescu DV. 1993. Dominance analysis: a new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychol. Bull. 114:542–51
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Busch T, Friede G. 2018. The robustness of the corporate social and financial performance relation: a second‐order meta‐analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 25:4583–608
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Carpenter NC, Son J, Harris TB, Alexander AL, Horner MT 2016. Don't forget the items: item-level meta-analytic and substantive validity techniques for reexamining scale validation. Organ. Res. Methods 19:616–50
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Carr JZ, Schmidt AM, Ford JK, Deshon RP 2003. Climate perceptions matter: a meta-analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states, and individual level work outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:4605–19
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Chaimani A, Higgins JPT, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G 2013. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLOS ONE 8:10e76654
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Chen G, Casper WJ, Cortina JM 2001. The roles of self-efficacy and task complexity in the relationships among cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and work-related performance: a meta-analytic examination. Hum. Perform. 14:3209–30
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Cheung MW, Cheung SF. 2016. Random‐effects models for meta‐analytic structural equation modeling: review, issues, and illustrations. Res. Synth. Methods 7:2140–55
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Cheung MW-L. 2015. Meta-Analysis: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach Chichester, UK: Wiley
  31. Cheung MW-L. 2018. Issues in solving the problem of effect size heterogeneity in meta-analytic structural equation modeling: a commentary and simulation study on Yu, Downes, Carter, and O'Boyle (2016). J. Appl. Psychol. 103:787–803
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Cheung MW-L. 2019. Some reflections on combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling. Res. Synth. Methods 10:115–22
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Cheung MW-L, Chan W. 2005. Meta-analytic structural equation modeling: a two-stage approach. Psychol. Methods 10:140–64
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Cheung MW-L, Hafdahl AR. 2016. Special issue on meta‐analytic structural equation modeling: introduction from the guest editors. Res. Synth. Methods 7:2112–20
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Cheung SF, Sun RW, Chan DKS 2019. Correlation-based meta-analytic structural equation modeling: effects of parameter covariance on point and interval estimates. Organ. Res. Methods 22:892916
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Chiaburu DS, Oh I-S, Berry CM, Li N, Gardner RG 2011. The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:61140–66
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Chiaburu DS, Oh I-S, Wang J, Stoverink A 2017. A bigger piece of the pie: the relative importance of affiliative and change-oriented citizenship and task performance in predicting overall job performance. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 27:197–107
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Coffman DL, MacCallum RC. 2005. Using parcels to convert path analysis models into latent variable models. Multivariate Behav. Res. 40:2235–59
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Cohen J. 1977. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences New York: Academic
  40. Colquitt JA, LePine JA, Noe RA 2000. Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. J. Appl. Psychol. 85:5678–707
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Combs JG, Crook TR, Rauch A 2019. Meta‐analytic research in management: contemporary approaches, unresolved controversies, and rising standards. J. Manag. Stud. 56:11–18
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Cortina JM. 2003. Apples and oranges (and pears, oh my!): the search for moderators in meta-analysis. Organ. Res. Methods 6:4415–39
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Cortina JM, Goldstein NB, Payne SC, Davison HK, Gilliland SW 2000. The incremental validity of interview scores over and above cognitive ability and conscientiousness scores. Pers. Psychol. 53:2325–51
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Courtright SH, Thurgood GR, Stewart GL, Pierotti AJ 2015. Structural interdependence in teams: an integrative framework and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 100:61825–46
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Cumming G, Finch S. 2005. Inference by eye: confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. Am. Psychol. 60:2170–80
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Daniels SR, Wang G, Lawong D, Ferris GR 2017. Collective assessment of the human resources management field: meta-analytic needs and theory development prospects for the future. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 27:18–25
    [Google Scholar]
  47. DeChurch LA, Mesmer-Magnus JR. 2010. The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:132–53
    [Google Scholar]
  48. DeRue DS, Nahrgang JD, Wellman NED, Humphrey SE 2011. Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: an integration and meta‐analytic test of their relative validity. Pers. Psychol. 64:17–52
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Edwards JR, Christian MS. 2014. Using accumulated knowledge to calibrate theoretical propositions. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 4:3279–91
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Field AP. 2001. Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: a Monte Carlo comparison of fixed-and random-effects methods. Psychol. Methods 6:2161–80
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Goering DD, Shimazu A, Zhou F, Wada T, Sakai R 2017. Not if, but how they differ: a meta-analytic test of the nomological networks of burnout and engagement. Burnout Res 5:21–34
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Gonzalez-Mulé E, Aguinis H. 2018. Advancing theory by assessing boundary conditions with metaregression: a critical review and best-practice recommendations. J. Manag. 44:62246–73
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Gottfredson RK, Aguinis H. 2017. Leadership behaviors and follower performance: deductive and inductive examination of theoretical rationales and underlying mechanisms. J. Organ. Behav. 38:558–91
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Greco LM, O'Boyle EH, Cockburn BS, Yuan Z 2018. Meta‐analysis of coefficient Alpha: a reliability generalization study. J. Manag. Stud. 55:4583–618
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Greer LL, de Jong BA, Schouten ME, Dannals JE 2018. Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: a meta-analytic integration. J. Appl. Psychol. 103:6591–613
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Gully SM, Devine DJ, Whitney DJ 1995. A meta-analysis of cohesion and performance: effects of level of analysis and task interdependence. Small Group Res 26:4497–520
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Harrison DA, Newman DA, Roth PL 2006. How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Acad. Manag. J. 49:2305–25
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hedges LV, Vevea JL. 1998. Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychol. Methods 3:4486–504
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Hom PW, Caranikas-Walker F, Prussia GE, Griffeth RW 1992. A meta-analytical structural equations analysis of a model of employee turnover. J. Appl. Psychol. 77:6890–909
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Hom PW, Griffeth RW, Sellaro CL 1984. The validity of Mobley's 1977 model of employee turnover. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 34:141–74
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hough L, Oswald FL, Ock J 2015. Beyond the Big Five: new directions for personality research and practice in organizations. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2:1183–209
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Hu LT, Bentler PM. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model.: Multidiscip. J. 6:11–55
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Humphrey SE, Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP 2007. Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:51332–56
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. 2004. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  65. Johnson JW. 2000. A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behav. Res. 35:11–19
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Judge TA, Ilies R. 2002. Relationship of personality to performance motivation: a meta-analytic review. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:4797–807
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Judge TA, Jackson CL, Shaw JC, Scott BA, Rich BL 2007. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: the integral role of individual differences. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:1107–27
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Judge TA, Piccolo RF. 2004. Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 89:5755–68
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Kell HJ, Lang JWB. 2017. Specific abilities in the workplace: More important than g?. J. Intell. 5:213–18
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Kepes S, Banks GC, McDaniel M, Whetzel DL 2012. Publication bias in the organizational sciences. Organ. Res. Methods 15:4624–62
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Kristof-Brown AL, Zimmerman RD, Johnson EC 2005. Consequences of individuals' fit at work: a meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Pers. Psychol. 58:2281–342
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Lance CE, Butts MM, Michels LC 2006. The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say?. Organ. Res. Methods 9:2202–20
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Landis RS. 2013. Successfully combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling: recommendations and strategies. J. Bus. Psychol. 28:3251–61
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Le H, Oh I-S, Shaffer J, Schmidt F 2007. Implications of methodological advances for the practice of personnel selection: how practitioners benefit from meta-analysis. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 21:36–15
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Le H, Schmidt FL, Putka DJ 2009. The multi-faceted nature of measurement error and its implications for measurement error corrections. Organ. Res. Methods 12:165–200
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. 1993. The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: confirmation from meta-analysis. Am. Psychol. 48:1181–209
    [Google Scholar]
  77. McNatt DB. 2000. Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management: a meta-analysis of the result. J. Appl. Psychol. 85:2314–22
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Michel JS, Viswesvaran C, Thomas J 2011. Conclusions from meta‐analytic structural equation models generally do not change due to corrections for study artifacts. Res. Synth. Methods 2:3174–87
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Mills E, Ioannidis J, Thorlund K, Schünemann H, Puhan M, Guyatt G 2012. How to use an article reporting a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis. JAMA: J. Am. Med. Assoc. 308:121246–53
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Mobley WH, Horner SQ, Hollingsworth AT 1978. An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. J. Appl. Psychol. 63:408–14
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Murphy KR. 2017. What inferences can and cannot be made on the basis of meta-analysis?. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 27:1193–200
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Murphy KR, DeShon R. 2000. Interrater correlations do not estimate the reliability of job performance ratings. Pers. Psychol. 53:4873–900
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Nye CD, Drasgow F. 2011. Assessing goodness of fit: simple rules of thumb simply do not work. Organ. Res. Methods 14:3548–70
    [Google Scholar]
  84. O'Boyle EH, Forsyth DR, Banks GC, Story PA, White CD 2015. A meta‐analytic test of redundancy and relative importance of the dark triad and five‐factor model of personality. J. Personal. 83:6644–64
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Oh I-S. 2009. The Five-Factor Model of personality and job performance in East Asia: a cross-cultural validity generalization study Doctoral dissertation, Univ Iowa, Iowa City:
  86. Oh I-S, Guay RP, Kim K, Harold CM, Lee JH et al. 2014. Fit happens globally: a meta-analytic comparison of the relationships of person-environment fit dimensions with work attitudes and performance across East Asia, Europe, and North America. Pers. Psychol. 67:199–152
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Oh I-S, Roth PL. 2017. On the mystery (or myth) of challenging principles and methods of validity generalization (VG) based on fragmentary knowledge and improper or outdated practices of VG. Ind. Organ. Psychol.: Perspect. Sci. Pract. 10:3479–85
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Oswald FL, Johnson JW. 1998. On the robustness, bias, and stability of statistics from meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: some initial Monte Carlo findings. J. Appl. Psychol. 83:2164–78
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Ozer DJ. 1985. Correlation and the coefficient of determination. Psychol. Bull. 97:307–15
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Paterson TA, Harms PD, Steel P, Credé M 2016. An assessment of the magnitude of effect sizes: evidence from 30 years of meta-analysis in management. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 23:166–81
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Richard FD, Bond CF Jr., Stokes-Zoota JJ 2003. One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 7:331–63
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Robbins S, Oh I-S, Huy L, Button C 2009. Intervention effects on college performance and retention as mediated by motivational, emotional, and social control factors: integrated meta-analytic path analyses. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:51163–84
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Rockstuhl T, Van Dyne L 2018. A bi-factor theory of the four-factor model of cultural intelligence: meta-analysis and theoretical extensions. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 148:124–44
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Roth PL, Le H, Oh I-S, Van Iddekinge C, Buster MA et al. 2014. Differential validity for cognitive ability tests in employment and educational settings: not much more than range restriction. ? J. Appl. Psychol. 99:11–20
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Roth PL, Switzer FS III, Van Iddekinge CH, Oh I-S 2011. Toward better meta‐analytic matrices: how input values can affect research conclusions in human resource management simulations. Pers. Psychol. 64:4899–935
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Rynes SL, Colbert AE, Brown KG 2002. HR professionals’ beliefs about effective human resource practices: correspondence between research and practice. Hum. Resour. Manag. 41:2149–74
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Schmidt FL. 2017. Statistical and measurement pitfalls in the use of meta-regression in meta-analysis. Career Dev. Int. 22:5469–76
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. 1998. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychol. Bull. 124:2262–74
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. 2015. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. , 5th ed..
  100. Schmidt FL, Le H, Ilies R 2003. Beyond alpha: an empirical examination of the effects of different sources of measurement error on reliability estimates for measures of individual differences constructs. Psychol. Methods 8:2206–24
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Schmidt FL, Le H, Oh I-S 2013. Are true scores and construct scores the same? A critical examination of their substitutability and the implications for research results. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 21:4339–54
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Schmidt FL, Oh I-S. 2013. Methods for second order meta-analysis and illustrative applications. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 121:2204–18
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Schmidt FL, Oh I-S, Hayes T 2009. Fixed versus random effects models in meta-analysis: model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 62:197–128
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Schmidt FL, Shaffer JA, Oh I-S 2008. Increased accuracy for range restriction corrections: implications for the role of personality and general mental ability in job and training performance. Pers. Psychol. 61:4827–68
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Schmidt FL, Viswesvaran C, Ones DS 2000. Reliability is not validity and validity is not reliability. Pers. Psychol. 53:4901–12
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Seltzer BK, Ones DS, Tatar A 2017. Using personality facets to understand the nature of personality-satisfaction relationships: findings from meta-analytic bifactor latent modeling. Career Dev. Int. 22:5477–506
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Sheng Z, Kong W, Cortina JM, Hou S 2016. Analyzing matrices of meta‐analytic correlations: current practices and recommendations. Res. Synth. Methods 7:2187–208
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) 2018. Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures Bowling Green, OH: SIOP. , 5th ed..
  109. Steel P, Schmidt J, Bosco F, Uggerslev K 2019. The effects of personality on job satisfaction and life satisfaction: A meta-analytic investigation accounting for bandwidth–fidelity and commensurability. Hum. Relat. 72:2217–47
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Steel PD, Kammeyer-Mueller JD. 2002. Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:196–111
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J, Olkin I 2003. Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Stat. Med. 22:132113–26
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Thomas DR, Zumbo BD, Kwan E, Schweitzer L 2014. On Johnson's 2000 relative weights method for assessing variable importance: A reanalysis. Multivariate Behav. Res. 49:4329–38
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Thompson SG, Higgins JP. 2002. How should meta‐regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted. ? Stat. Med. 21:111559–73
    [Google Scholar]
  114. van Lissa CJ. 2017. MetaForest: Exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis using random forests Work. Pap https://osf.io/5upaj/download/
  115. Viswesvaran C, Ones DS. 1995. Theory testing: combining psychometric meta‐analysis and structural equations modeling. Pers. Psychol. 48:4865–85
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Viswesvaran C, Ones DS, Schmidt FL 1996. Comparative analysis of the reliability of job performance ratings. J. Appl. Psychol. 81:5557–74
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Viswesvaran C, Ones DS, Schmidt FL, Le H, Oh I-S 2014. Measurement error obfuscates scientific knowledge: path to cumulative knowledge requires corrections for unreliability and psychometric meta-analyses. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 7:4507–18
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Wang G, Oh I-S, Courtright SH, Colbert AE 2011. Transformational leadership and performance across criteria and levels: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of research. Group Organ. Manag. 36:2223–70
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Whitener EM. 1990. Confusion of confidence intervals and credibility intervals in meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 75:315–21
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Whitman DS, Van Rooy DL, Viswesvaran C 2010. Satisfaction, citizenship behaviors, and performance in work units: a meta‐analysis of collective construct relations. Pers. Psychol. 63:141–81
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Wilmot MP, Wanberg CR, Kammeyer-Mueller JD, Ones DS 2019. Extraversion advantages at work: a quantitative review and synthesis of the meta-analytic evidence. J. Appl. Psychol. 104:144770
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Yu A, Matta FK, Cornfield B 2018. Is leader–member exchange differentiation beneficial or detrimental for group effectiveness? A meta-analytic investigation and theoretical integration. Acad. Manag. J. 61:31158–88
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Yu JJ, Downes PE, Carter KM, O'Boyle EH 2016. The problem of effect size heterogeneity in meta-analytic structural equation modeling. J. Appl. Psychol. 101:101457–73
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045006
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045006
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error