PUBLICATION BIAS: A CASE STUDY OF FOUR TEST VENDORS

This article has 2 goals. First, we discuss publication bias and explain why it presents a potential problem for industrial and organizational psychology. After reviewing the traditional failsafe N, or file drawer analysis, we introduce a more sophisticated method of publication bias analysis (trim and fill), which has been developed in the medical literature but is largely unfamiliar to industrial and organizational psychology researchers. Second, we demonstrate trim and fill by applying it to validity information reported in the technical manuals of 4 test vendors. In doing so, we assess the likelihood that criterion-related validity information provided by test publishers may overestimate test validity. In our analysis of 18 validity distributions, we found evidence of either no or minimal bias for 2 of the vendors' distributions and evidence of moderate-to-severe bias in at least 1 distribution from each of the other 2 vendors. In both cases in which publication bias was found, we noted instances in which the publishers tended to report only statistically significant correlations and that this practice was detected using publication bias methodology.     

The current status of clinical geropsychology in Australia: A survey of practising psychologists

Little recent objective evidence exists to qualify past concerns regarding the low numbers of psychologists working with older adults in Australia. The present study reports on figures from two surveys of Australian psychologists, finding that of the 1,699 psychologists surveyed, only 6% specialise in treating older adults. This figure is comparable to those from studies conducted overseas, where more training and employment opportunities are available. Reasons for such low figures are explored together with recommendations to meet the future demand for psychological services as the proportion of elderly adults within the Australian population increases.     

CONSTRUCTING PARALLEL SIMULATION EXERCISES FOR ASSESSMENT CENTERS AND OTHER FORMS OF BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT

Assessment centers rely on multiple, carefully constructed behavioral simulation exercises to measure individuals on multiple performance dimensions. Although methods for establishing parallelism among alternate forms of paper-and-pencil tests have been well researched (i.e., to equate tests on difficulty such that the scores can be compared), little research has considered the why and how of parallel simulation exercises. This paper extends established procedures for constructing parallel test forms to dimension-based behavioral simulations. We discuss reasons for establishing comparable, alternate simulation forms and discuss the issues raised when applying traditional procedures to simulation exercises. After proposing a set of guidelines for establishing alternate forms among simulations, we apply these guidelines to simulations used in an operational assessment center.     

RELATIONAL DISTANCE IN MANAGING CONFLICT

This study assessed the extent to which providing a problem-solving structure to conflicting dyads might impact members' use of language to mark their relational distance. It was hypothesized that conflicting subjects instructed to use a set of decision rules to resolve the conflict would use less immediate and more formal relational code choices than conflicting subjects free to resolve the conflict in any manner they chose. This hypothesis was confirmed for the immediacy, but not the formality variable. The discussion section suggested that because decision rules may encourage conflicting dyads to use less “liking” language to resolve their dispute, such rules may serve to discourage participants from creating more integrative solutions to conflicts.     

EFFICACY DISPERSION IN TEAMS: MOVING BEYOND AGREEMENT AND AGGREGATION

We challenge the assumption that within-team variability in team efficacy is simply a methodological concern and statistical prerequisite. We do so by developing a theoretical model and research agenda for the study of dispersion in team efficacy. We construct a taxonomy that distinguishes 4 distinct forms of dispersion in team efficacy, discuss the antecedents to these forms of dispersion, and examine how the forms of efficacy dispersion impact team emergent states, processes, and effectiveness.