The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Meta-Analysis of Gender Group Differences for Measures of Job Performance in Field Studies
Abstract
There are multiple views in human resource management and organizational behavior concerning gender differences in measures of job performance. Some researchers suggest that males generally are evaluated higher than females across a variety of situations that include job performance measurement. At the same time, the presence of specific status cues in expectation states theory (EST; similar to the concept of individuating information) suggests that measures of job performance will be more similar than different for males and females. Previous analyses are unclear in their results for the measurement of the construct of job performance because they have included, and/or focused on, additional constructs (e.g., hiring suitability, leadership performance aggregated with leadership satisfaction) or have used student samples in lab experiments. The authors of this article conducted a meta-analysis of job performance measures from field studies. They found that females generally scored slightly higher than males (mean d = −.11, 80% credibility interval of −.33 to .12). Other analyses suggested that, although job performance ratings favored females, ratings of promotion potential were higher for males. Thus, ratings of promotability may deserve further attention as a potential source of differential promotion rates. These findings and processes are discussed within the context of EST.
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.
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
Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.109.3.573 · Cited by 7,300
Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425 · Cited by 5,942
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023
Heilman, M. E. (2001) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234 · Cited by 2,482
PREDICTORS OF OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE CAREER SUCCESS: A META‐ANALYSIS
NG, T. W. H., EBY, L. T., SORENSEN, K. L., & FELDMAN, D. C. (2005) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x · Cited by 2,412
Cited by
Koch, A. J., D'Mello, S. D., & Sackett, P. R. (2015) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0036734 · Cited by 583
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. (2013) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547012472684 · Cited by 469
Evaluating gender similarities and differences using metasynthesis.
Zell, E., Krizan, Z., & Teeter, S. R. (2015) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0038208 · Cited by 434
Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures
(2018) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1017/iop.2018.195 · Cited by 300
Gender and leadership emergence: A meta-analysis and explanatory model
Badura, K. L., Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Yan, T. T., & Jeon, G. (2018) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12266 · Cited by 288
Metadata
- Authors
- Roth, P. L., Purvis, K. L., & Bobko, P.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-06-23
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 719-739
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-1211
- OpenAlex
- W1970503709
- Cited by
- 238
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 6.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Meta-Analysis of Gender Group Differences for Measures of Job Performance in Field Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0149206310374774
- The paper
- Roth, P. L., Purvis, K. L., & Bobko, P. (2012). A Meta-Analysis of Gender Group Differences for Measures of Job Performance in Field Studies. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310374774
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.