Premium
INTERPRETING THE RESULTS OF META‐ANALYTIC RESEARCH: A COMMENT ON SCHMITT, GOODING, NOE, AND KIRSCH (1984)
Author(s) -
MCDANIEL MICHAEL A.,
HIRSH HANNAH ROTHSTEIN,
SCHMIDT FRANK L.,
RAJU NAMBURY S.,
HUNTER JOHN E.
Publication year - 1986
Publication title -
personnel psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.076
H-Index - 142
eISSN - 1744-6570
pISSN - 0031-5826
DOI - 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00579.x
Subject(s) - variance (accounting) , generalization , psychology , statistics , sampling (signal processing) , residual , sample (material) , sampling error , sample variance , econometrics , observational error , mathematics , chemistry , mathematical analysis , algorithm , chromatography , computer science , economics , accounting , filter (signal processing) , computer vision
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.