Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-d774m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-10T14:49:01.483Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Empirical Benchmarks for Interpreting Effect Size Variability in Meta-Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2017

Brenton M. Wiernik ,
Jack W. Kostal ,
Michael P. Wilmot ,
Stephan Dilchert  and
Deniz S. Ones
Brenton M. Wiernik*
Affiliation:
Department of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, Ghent University
Jack W. Kostal
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota
Michael P. Wilmot
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota
Stephan Dilchert
Affiliation:
Narendra Paul Loomba Department of Management, Baruch College, CUNY
Deniz S. Ones
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brenton M. Wiernik, Department of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Gent, Belgium. Email: wiernik@workpsy.ch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Generalization in meta-analyses is not a dichotomous decision (typically encountered in papers using the Q test for homogeneity, the 75% rule, or null hypothesis tests). Inattention to effect size variability in meta-analyses may stem from a lack of guidelines for interpreting credibility intervals. In this commentary, we describe two methods for making practical interpretations and determining whether a particular SDρ represents a meaningful level of variability.

Information

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 2017 , pp. 472 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (2), 410–424. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.410 Google Scholar
Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 36 (4), 1065–1105. https://doi.org/10/ftwgxk Google Scholar
Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Singh, K., Field, J. G., & Pierce, C. A. (2015). Correlational effect size benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (2), 431–449. http://doi.org/10/bnw8 Google Scholar
Chang, C.-H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012). Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of Management, 38 (1), 81–128. https://doi.org/10/dbd9nb Google Scholar
Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I.-S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The five-factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (6), 1140–1166. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024004 Google Scholar
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64 (1), 89–136. https://doi.org/10/c6b58z Google Scholar
Credé, M., Tynan, M. C., & Harms, P. D. (2016). Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000102 Google Scholar
Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016). Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 74–78. http://doi.org/10/f84bhv CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemphill, J. F. (2003). Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist, 58 (1), 78–79. http://doi.org/10/fb38g8 Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (3), 530–541. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.3.530 Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98 (6), 875–925. https://doi.org/10/bdbb Google Scholar
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58 (2), 367–408. https://doi.org/10/dw64z6 Google Scholar
Paterson, T. A., Harms, P. D., Steel, P., & Credé, M. (2016). An assessment of the magnitude of effect sizes: Evidence from 30 years of meta-analysis in management. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 23 (1), 66–81. http://doi.org/10/bjz9 Google Scholar
Raju, N. S., Burke, M. J., Normand, J., & Langlois, G. M. (1991). A new meta-analytic approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76 (3), 432–446. http://doi.org/10/dcrgkf Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L. (2008). Meta-analysis: A constantly evolving research integration tool. Organizational Research Methods, 11 (1), 96–113. http://doi.org/10/drwrb2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, P. D. G. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133 (1), 65–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65 Google Scholar
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134 (1), 138–161.Google Scholar
Steel, P. D. G., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Paterson, T. A. (2015). Improving the meta-analytic assessment of effect size variance with an informed Bayesian prior. Journal of Management, 41 (2), 718–743. http://doi.org/10/b6rc Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., Hundley, N. A., & Christiansen, N. D. (2017). Meta-analysis and the myth of generalizability. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10 (3), 421–456.Google Scholar
Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83 (2), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317910x502359 Google Scholar
Vacha-Haase, T., Tani, C. R., Kogan, L. R., Woodall, R. A., & Thompson, B. (2001). Reliability generalization: Exploring reliability variations on MMPI/MMPI-2 validity scale scores. Assessment, 8 (4), 391–401. http://doi.org/10.1177/107319110100800404 Google Scholar
Wilmot, M. P. (2017). Personality and its impacts across the behavioral sciences: A quantitative review of meta-analytic findings. Doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals' turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel Psychology, 61 (2), 309–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00115.x Google Scholar