Cited by 160Psychology Research and BibliometricsMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsBusiness Strategies and Management Research

Samples in applied psychology: Over a decade of research in review.

Shen, Winny, Kiger, Thomas B., Davies, Stacy E., Rasch, Rena L., Simon, Kara M., Ones, Deniz S.·2011·Journal of Applied Psychology

Abstract

This study examines sample characteristics of articles published in Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP) from 1995 to 2008. At the individual level, the overall median sample size over the period examined was approximately 173, which is generally adequate for detecting the average magnitude of effects of primary interest to researchers who publish in JAP. Samples using higher units of analyses (e.g., teams, departments/work units, and organizations) had lower median sample sizes (Mdn ≈ 65), yet were arguably robust given typical multilevel design choices of JAP authors despite the practical constraints of collecting data at higher units of analysis. A substantial proportion of studies used student samples (~40%); surprisingly, median sample sizes for student samples were smaller than working adult samples. Samples were more commonly occupationally homogeneous (~70%) than occupationally heterogeneous. U.S. and English-speaking participants made up the vast majority of samples, whereas Middle Eastern, African, and Latin American samples were largely unrepresented. On the basis of study results, recommendations are provided for authors, editors, and readers, which converge on 3 themes: (a) appropriateness and match between sample characteristics and research questions, (b) careful consideration of statistical power, and (c) the increased popularity of quantitative synthesis. Implications are discussed in terms of theory building, generalizability of research findings, and statist…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0023322

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shen, W., Kiger, T. B., Davies, S. E., Rasch, R. L., Simon, K. M., & Ones, D. S.
Affiliations
University of Minnesota (US)
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Published
2011
Volume
96
Issue
5
Pages
1055-1064
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
OpenAlex
W2085347967
Cited by
160
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
8.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Business Strategies and Management Research
Keywords
sample size, sample characteristics, multilevel analysis, student samples, study participant representativeness, statistical power, generalizability, unit of analysis
MeSH terms
Bibliographies as Topic, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Psychology, Applied, Statistics as Topic, Sample Size

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