On Reconciling Conflicting Meta-Analytic Findings Regarding Integrity Test Validity.
We react to the Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau (2012a) meta-analysis of the relationship between integrity test scores and work-related criteria, the earlier Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (1993) meta-analysis of those relationships, the Harris et at. (2012) and Ones, Viswesvaran, an...
| Published in: | Journal of Applied Psychology Vol. 97; no. 3; pp. 550 - 557 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
American Psychological Association
May2012
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=75324742&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 75324742 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00219010 JAY jtl: Journal of Applied Psychology issn: 00219010 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: May2012 vid: 97 iid: 3 pid: 34 pub: American Psychological Association artinfo: ui: 75324742 10.1037/a0028167 ppf: 550 ppct: 7 formats: tig: atl: On Reconciling Conflicting Meta-Analytic Findings Regarding Integrity Test Validity. aug: au: Sackett, Paul R. Schmitt, Neal affil: Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota Department of Psychology, Michigan State University su: Integrity Job performance Reliability (Personality trait) Meta-analysis Test scoring sug: subj: Integrity Job performance Reliability (Personality trait) Meta-analysis Test scoring keyword: counterproductive work behavior integrity testing job performance meta-analysis counterproductive work behavior integrity testing job performance meta-analysis ab: We react to the Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau (2012a) meta-analysis of the relationship between integrity test scores and work-related criteria, the earlier Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (1993) meta-analysis of those relationships, the Harris et at. (2012) and Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (2012) responses, and the Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau (2012b) rebuttal. We highlight differences between the findings of the 2 meta-analyses by focusing on studies that used predictive designs, applicant samples, and non-self-report criteria. We conclude that study exclusion criteria, correction for artifacts, and second order sampling error are not likely explanations for the differences in findings. The lack of detailed documentation of all effect size estimates used in either meta-analysis makes it impossible to ascertain the bases for the differences i~ findings. We call for increased detail in meta-analytic reporting and for better information sharing among the parties producing and meta-analytically integrating validity evidence. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|