INTERPRETING THE RESULTS OF META‐ANALYTIC RESEARCH: A COMMENT ON SCHMITT, GOODING, NOE, AND KIRSCH (1984)
- 1 March 1986
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Personnel Psychology
- Vol. 39 (1) , 141-148
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00579.x
Abstract
This comment shows that the conclusion of Schmitt, Gooding, Noe, and Kirsch (1984) that their meta‐analytic findings are inconsistent with earlier validity generalization work is in error. The findings in their study that less variance than previously reported was due to sampling error are a result of their larger average sample sizes. Their claim that, after sampling error variance was accounted for, much unexplained variance remained, is incorrect. This error is demonstrated to be a result of their exclusive concentration on percentages and consequent failure to examine amount of observed and residual variance.Keywords
This publication has 5 references indexed in Scilit:
- Fiedler's Contingency Theory of Leadership: An application of the meta-analysis procedures of Schmidt and Hunter.Psychological Bulletin, 1985
- METAANALYSES OF VALIDITY STUDIES PUBLISHED BETWEEN 1964 AND 1982 AND THE INVESTIGATION OF STUDY CHARACTERISTICSPersonnel Psychology, 1984
- Validity generalization results for computer programmers.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1980
- Validity generalization results for tests used to predict job proficiency and training success in clerical occupations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1980
- Validity generalization results for tests used to predict job proficiency and training success in clerical occupations.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1980