A new meta-analytic approach.

Raju, Nambury S.; Burke, Michael J.; Normand, Jacques; Langlois, George M.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.76.3.432

Cited by 149 publications

(179 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

174

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We conducted the analyses using the Raju, Burke, Normand, and Langlois (1991) approach to meta-analysis with an adapted version of Arthur, Bennett, and Huffcutt (2001) SAS PROC MEANS. In the Raju et al method, each effect size is individually weighted by the sample size and corrected for attenuation due to predictor and criterion unreliability.…”

Section: Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Rater Liking and Performance Ratings

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This meta-analysis reviewed the magnitude and moderators of the relationship between rater liking and performance ratings. The results revealed substantial overlap between rater liking and performance ratings (ρ = .77). Although this relationship is often interpreted as indicative of bias, we review studies that indicate that to some extent the relationship between liking and performance ratings potentially reflects "true" differences in ratee performance. Moderator analyses indicated that the relationship between liking and performance ratings was weaker for ratings of organizational citizenship behaviors, ratings made by peer raters, ratings in nonsales jobs, and ratings made for development; however, the relationship was strong across moderator levels, underscoring the robustness of this relationship. Implications for the interpretation of performance ratings are discussed.Performance evaluation systems are central to a cross-section of talent management functions, such as determining employee compensation and rewards, providing developmental feedback, documenting administrative decisions, succession planning, and reinforcing organizational norms (Cascio & Aguinis, 2005). In fact, Ghorpade and Chen (1995) suggested that performance ratings are "inevitable in all organizations-large and small, public and private, local and multinational" (p. 32). Yet performance appraisals have been the subject of substantial criticism over the years. Indeed, skepticism as to the quality of the information obtained from human evaluations has persisted for nearly as long as the field of psychological measurement (Thorndike, 1925;Wells, 1907). Murphy (2008) succinctly summed up the state of affairs, noting "performance ratings are widely viewed as poor measures of job performance" (p. 148).Over the years, a litany of factors has been proposed to hinder the quality of performance ratings. The overarching theme of this school of thought is that raters introduce performance irrelevant variance into performance ratings because they are either unable or unwilling to provide accurate ratings. Early research attributed low-quality ratings to rater ability (or presumably, lack thereof) and sought to design better scales

show abstract

Section: Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Rater Liking and Performance Ratings

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Not all of the studies reported information on the reliability of job satisfaction scales. When no information about reliability was reported, we estimated the reliability using the approach implemented in the meta-analytic procedure of Raju et al (1991). In other words, the approach of Raju et al allows for correction of test±retest correlations for unreliability in the job satisfaction measure (at both measurement periods) by taking sampling error in the sample-based reliability estimates into account.…”

Section: Calculationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Job satisfaction: a meta‐analysis of stabilities

Dormann¹,

Zapf²

2001

J Organ Behavior

298

210

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryEvidence suggesting that job satisfaction is caused by individual dispositions is reviewed, and stability coef®cients for job satisfaction in previous studies are analysed with a meta-analytic procedure. Previous longitudinal studies analysing job changer samples imply an upper limit estimate of 0.51 for direct dispositional in¯uences on job satisfaction. A study of job changers considering the stability of working conditions suggests that this estimate has to be considerably corrected downwards. At present, it is concluded that it is more likely that dispositions indirectly affect job satisfaction via selection and self-selection processes. Implications for job satisfaction as a tool for organizational assessment are discussed.

show abstract

“…Typically, effect sizes are summarized by computing a weighted average of the effects found in primary studies, where the weights are the sample sizes of each study (Hedges & Olkin, 1985;Raju et al, 1991;Schmidt & Hunter, 2014) or within-study variance, which is itself an inverse function of sample size (Borenstein et al, 2009). Summary effect size estimates are usually accompanied by a confidence interval, which is derived from the standard error of the effect and thus captures the precision of the estimate (Borenstein et al, 2009;Raju et al, 1991;Schmidt & Hunter, 2014). All else being equal, the confidence interval around an effect size estimate decreases as the combined sample sizes of the primary studies increase.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Using accumulated knowledge to calibrate theoretical propositions

Edwards

Christian

2014

Organizational Psychology Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In organizational psychology research, most theories put forth directional predictions, such as stating that an increase in one construct will result in an increase or decrease in another construct. Such predictions are imprecise, given that they can be confirmed by a wide range of values, and theories that rely on such predictions bear little risk of falsification. In this article, we present an approach for increasing theoretical precision by using results from meta-analyses to calibrate the predictions embedded in a theory. Our approach provides point values for theoretical predictions along with credibility intervals that capture the likely range of the predicted effects. We illustrate this approach by drawing from research on work engagement and calibrate the predictions represented by two conceptual models. Contributions and limitations of the proposed approach are discussed.

show abstract

A new meta-analytic approach.

Cited by 149 publications

References 46 publications

A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Rater Liking and Performance Ratings

A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Rater Liking and Performance Ratings

Job satisfaction: a meta‐analysis of stabilities

Using accumulated knowledge to calibrate theoretical propositions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About