Comparison of three meta-analysis methods revisited: An analysis of Johnson, Mullen, and Salas (1995)

被引：54

作者：

Schmidt, FL

Hunter, JE

机构：

[1] Univ Iowa, Dept Management & Org, Iowa City, IA 52242 USA

[2] Michigan State Univ, Dept Psychol, E Lansing, MI 48824 USA

来源：

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY | 1999年 / 84卷 / 01期

关键词：

D O I：

10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.144

中图分类号：

B849 [应用心理学];

学科分类号：

040203 ;

摘要：

B. T. Johnson. B, Mullen, and E. Salas (1995) concluded that the J. E. Hunter and F. L. Schmidt (1990) meta-analysis methods yield anomalous results in a variety of analyses. An examination of their procedures reveals that most of their conclusions to this effect stem from their use of a formula for the standard error of the mean correlation that is not used in the Hunter and Schmidt (1990) methods. Results produced using the appropriate formula are not anomalous and are similar to those from other meta-analysis procedures.

引用

页码：144 / 148

页数：5

共 23 条

[1]

[Anonymous], 1994, The handbook of research synthesis

[2]

[Anonymous], 1994, The handbook on research synthesis

[3]

[Anonymous], BEHAVIORAL BRAIN SCI

[4]

COHEN J, 1994, AM PSYCHOL, V49, P997, DOI 10.1037/0003-066X.50.12.1103

[5] Using random rather than fixed effects models in meta-analysis: Implications for situational specificity and validity generalization [J].

Erez, A ;

Bloom, MC ;

Wells, MT .

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 1996, 49 (02) :275-306

[6]

Hedges L.V., 1994, The handbook of research synthesis, P285

[7]

Hedges L.V., 2014, STAT METHODS METAANA

[8]

Hunter J.E., 1990, METHODS METAANALYSIS

[9] Needed: A ban on the significance test [J].

Hunter, JE .

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 1997, 8 (01) :3-7

[10]

HUNTER JE, 1997, UNPUB TYPE I ERROR F

← 1 2 3 →