On reconciling conflicting meta-analytic findings regarding integrity test validity

Paul R. Sackett, Neal Schmitt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

14 Scopus citations

Abstract

We react to the Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau (2012a) meta-analysis of the relationship between integrity test scores and work-related criteria, the earlier Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (1993) meta-analysis of those relationships, the Harris et al. (2012) and Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (2012) responses, and the Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau (2012b) rebuttal. We highlight differences between the findings of the 2 meta-analyses by focusing on studies that used predictive designs, applicant samples, and non-self-report criteria. We conclude that study exclusion criteria, correction for artifacts, and second order sampling error are not likely explanations for the differences in findings. The lack of detailed documentation of all effect size estimates used in either meta-analysis makes it impossible to ascertain the bases for the differences in findings. We call for increased detail in meta-analytic reporting and for better information sharing among the parties producing and meta-analytically integrating validity evidence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)550-556
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Applied Psychology
Volume97
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2012

Keywords

  • Counterproductive work behavior
  • Integrity testing
  • Job performance
  • Meta-analysis

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'On reconciling conflicting meta-analytic findings regarding integrity test validity'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this