The critical role of the research question, inclusion criteria, and transparency in meta-analyses of integrity test research: a reply to Harris et al. (2012) and Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (2012).

Clicks: 406
ID: 43641
2012
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #12 of 210 articles by views in the journal of applied psychology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 210 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
We clear up a number of misconceptions from the critiques of our meta-analysis (Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, & Odle-Dusseau, 2012). We reiterate that our research question focused on the criterion-related validity of integrity tests for predicting individual work behavior and that our inclusion criteria flowed from this question. We also reviewed the primary studies we could access from Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt's (1993) meta-analysis of integrity tests and found that only about 30% of the studies met our inclusion criteria. Further, analyses of some of the types of studies we had to exclude revealed potentially inflated validity estimates (e.g., corrected validities as high as .80 for polygraph studies). We also discuss our experience trying to obtain primary studies and other information from authors of Harris et al. (2012) and Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (2012). In addition, we address concerns raised about certain decisions we made and values we used, and we demonstrate how such concerns would have little or no effect on our results or conclusions. Finally, we discuss some other misconceptions about our meta-analysis, as well as some divergent views about the integrity test literature in general. Overall, we stand by our research question, methods, and results, which suggest that the validity of integrity tests for criteria such as job performance and counterproductive work behavior is weaker than the authors of the critiques appear to believe.
Reference Key
van-iddekinge2012thethe Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Van Iddekinge, Chad H;Roth, Philip L;Raymark, Patrick H;Odle-Dusseau, Heather N;
Journal the journal of applied psychology
Year 2012
DOI
10.1037/a0026551
URL
Keywords
prematurity withdrawal burn unit multidisciplinary team

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.