Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:29:36.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The power of the plural: Toward a better appreciation of Table 1s in meta-analytic inquiries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2021

Zhenyu Yuan Open the ORCID record for Zhenyu Yuan [Opens in a new window]
Zhenyu Yuan*
Affiliation:
Department of Managerial Studies, College of Business Administration, University of Illinois Chicago
*
Email: zyuan19@uic.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 478 - 480
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

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.)

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000 Google Scholar
Carlson, K. D., & Ji, F. X. (2011). Citing and building on meta-analytic findings: Areview and recommendations. Organizational Research Methods, 14(4), 696–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428110384272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeSimone, J. A., Köhler, T., & Schoen, J. L. (2019). If it were only that easy: The use of meta-analytic research by organizational scholars. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 867–891. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118756743 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: Ameta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024844 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., Mulaik, S. A., & Ladd, R. T. (1992). Validity generalization in the context of situational models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.1.3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köhler, T., Cortina, J. M., Kurtessis, J. N., & Gölz, M. (2015). Are we correcting correctly? Interdependence of reliabilities in meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 355–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114563617 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindell, M. K., & Brandt, C. J. (2000). Climate quality and climate consensus as mediators of the relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.331 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, K. (2021). In praise of Table 1: The importance of making better use of descriptive statistics. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 14(4), 461–477.Google Scholar
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage.10.4135/9781483398105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, B., Salvaggio, A. N., & Subirats, M. (2002). Climate strength: Anew direction for climate research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.220 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 96–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.96 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yuan, Z., Morgeson, F. P., & LeBreton, J. M. (2020). Maybe not so independent after all: The possibility, prevalence, and consequences of violating the independence assumptions in psychometric meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 73(3), 491–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12372 CrossRefGoogle Scholar