Samples in applied psychology: Over a decade of research in review.
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Student and nonstudent samples typically produce differing results.
“Indeed, the overuse of student samples is concerning as student and nonstudent samples typically produce differing results (Shen et al., 2011).”
From Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as Shen et al., 2011
Cites
Cohen, J. (1992) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783 · Cited by 5,870 · see citing works
Standard Errors and Sample Sizes for Two-Level Research
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1993) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.3102/10769986018003237 · Cited by 487 · cited 2× · see citing works
“The key effect size of interest (i.e., Level 1 or Level 2, fixed or random effect) will dictate where to shift resources for a researcher to reach a desired level of power (see Snijders & Bosker, 1993, and Headrick & Zumbo, 2005, for more details).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Keith, M. G., Tay, L., & Harms, P. D. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01359 · Cited by 319 · see citing works
Salgado, J. F., Anderson, N., & Tauriz, G. (2015) · Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1111/joop.12098 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
To Say or Not to Say: Different Strategies of Acknowledging a Visible Disability
Lyons, B. J., Martinez, L. R., Ruggs, E. N., Hebl, M. R., Ryan, A. M., O’Brien, K. R., & Roebuck, A. (2018) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206316638160 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Sutton, A. (2018) · European Review of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.erap.2018.06.001 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Factors Related to Mean Score Group Differences on Cognitive Ability Tests: A Systematic Review
Cuppello, S., Zibarras, L. D., & Corr, P. J. (2025) · Trends in Psychology · doi:10.1007/s43076-025-00504-5
- Authors
- Shen, W., Kiger, T. B., Davies, S. E., Rasch, R. L., Simon, K. M., & Ones, D. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- ORCID
- Shen, Winny
- 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