INTERPRETING THE RESULTS OF META-ANALYTIC RESEARCH: A COMMENT ON SCHMITT, GOODING, NOE, AND KIRSCH (1984) |
| |
| Authors: | MICHAEL A. MCDANIEL HANNAH ROTHSTEIN HIRSH FRANK L. SCHMIDT NAMBURY S. RAJU JOHN E. HUNTER |
| |
| Affiliation: | U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Washington, DC;U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Washington, DC and George Washington University;Illinois Institute of Technology;Michigan State University |
| |
| Abstract: | 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
