The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of two random-effects methods of meta-analysis.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The two-stage correction procedure is commonly followed in meta-analytic studies.
“This practice is commonly followed in meta-analytic studies (for some cautions and reservations concerning this practice, see Hall & Brannick, 2002).”
From A Meta-Analysis of Work Demand Stressors and Job Performance: Examining Main and Moderating Effects (2008) · cites this paper as Hall & Brannick, 2002
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research
GLASS, G. V. (1976) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x005010003 · Cited by 4,890
Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486 · Cited by 2,977
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2000) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/1468-2389.00156 · Cited by 833
A multivariate mixed linear model for meta-analysis.
Kalaian, H. A., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.3.227 · Cited by 229
Development and test of a new model for validity generalization.
Callender, J. C., & Osburn, H. G. (1980) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.65.5.543 · Cited by 112
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- Algera. Validity generalization: Some critical remarks on the Schmidt-Hunter procedure. 57 197 1984 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.66.6.664 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.67.6.859 · DOI
- Erez. Using random rather than fixed effects models in meta-analysis: Implications for situation specificity and validity generalization. 49 275 1996 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1207/s15327043hup1101_1 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.74.3.469 · DOI
- 10.1207/s15327108ijap0404_1 · DOI
- Hunter, 1990, Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings.
- 10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.440 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.77.1.3 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.168 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.72.1.30 · DOI
- 10.1207/s15327108ijap0601_1 · DOI
- McDaniel. A meta-analysis of the validity of training and experience ratings in personnel selection. 41 283 1988 · DOI
- Murphy. Interrater correlations do not estimate the reliability of job performance ratings. 53 873 2000 · DOI
- 1992, Combining information: Statistical issues and opportunities for research.
- 10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.679 · DOI
- 10.1037/1082-989X.3.3.354 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.73.2.267 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.68.3.382 · DOI
- 10.1037/0033-2909.85.1.185 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.302 · DOI
- 1990, SAS/IML software: Usage and reference (Version 6).
- 10.1037/0021-9010.62.5.529 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.665 · DOI · Paper page
- Schmidt. Reliability is not validity and validity is not reliability. 53 901 2000 · DOI
- Schmitt. Meta-analysis of validity studies published between 1964 and 1982 and the investigation of study characteristics. 37 407 1984 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.72.1.146 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0021-9010.72.1.3 · DOI
- Tett. Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. 44 703 1991 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.679 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.13 · DOI
- 10.1037/0021-9010.75.3.315 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553
Steel, P. (2007) · Psychological bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65 · Cited by 3,417
Ellis, P. D. (2010) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511761676 · Cited by 2,461
A Review of Self-Determination Theory’s Basic Psychological Needs at Work
Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C.-H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206316632058 · Cited by 1,465
Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1348/000711010x502733 · Cited by 1,162
A Meta-Analysis of Work Demand Stressors and Job Performance: Examining Main and Moderating Effects
GILBOA, S., SHIROM, A., FRIED, Y., & COOPER, C. (2008) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00113.x · Cited by 1,072
A Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Intervention Programs Designed to Support Autonomy
Su, Y.-L., & Reeve, J. (2011) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9142-7 · Cited by 924
Gegenfurtner, A., Lehtinen, E., & Säljö, R. (2011) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9174-7 · Cited by 715
Credé, M., & Niehorster, S. (2012) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-011-9184-5 · Cited by 607
Why do people play games? A meta-analysis
Hamari, J., & Keronen, L. (2017) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.01.006 · Cited by 368
A meta-analytic examination of work and general locus of control.
Wang, Q., Bowling, N. A., & Eschleman, K. J. (2010) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0017707 · Cited by 292
Current methods for meta-analysis
Schulze, R. (2007) · Zeitschrift für Psychologie / Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1027/0044-3409.215.2.90 · Cited by 79
BEAULIEU‐PRÉVOST, D., & ZADRA, A. (2007) · Journal of Sleep Research · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2869.2007.00572.x · Cited by 59
Random or Fixed? An Empirical Examination of Meta-Analysis Model Choices
Slaney, K. L., Tafreshi, D., & Hohn, R. (2018) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/gpr0000140 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Hall, S. M., & Brannick, M. T.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Psychology
- Published
- 2002
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 377-389
- ISSN
- 1939-1854
- 0021-9010
- Cited by
- 79
- References
- 5
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
