The Critical Role of the Research Question, Inclusion Criteria, and Transparency in Meta-Analyses of Integrity Test Research: A Reply to Harris et al. (2012) and Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (2012)

• 成果类型: Editorial Material
• 署名作者: Van Iddekinge, Chad H.; Roth, Philip L.; Raymark, Patrick H.; Odle-Dusseau, Heather N.
• 署名单位: State University System of Florida; Florida State University; Clemson University; Clemson University; Gettysburg College
• 刊物名称: JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
• ISSN/ISSBN: 0021-9010
• DOI: 10.1037/a0026551
• 发表日期: 2012
• 页码: 543-549
• 关键词: INTEGRITY; honesty; personality tests; personnel selection; Meta-analysis

摘要

We clear up a number of misconceptions from the critiques of our meta-analysis (Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, & Odle-Dusseau, 2012). We reiterate that our research question focused on the criterion-related validity of integrity tests for predicting individual work behavior and that our inclusion criteria flowed from this question. We also reviewed the primary studies we could access from Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt's (1993) meta-analysis of integrity tests and found that only about 30% of the studies met our inclusion criteria. Further, analyses of some of the types of studies we had to exclude revealed potentially inflated validity estimates (e.g., corrected validities as high as .80 for polygraph studies). We also discuss our experience trying to obtain primary studies and other information from authors of Harris et al. (2012) and Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (2012). In addition, we address concerns raised about certain decisions we made and values we used, and we demonstrate how such concerns would have little or no effect on our results or conclusions. Finally, we discuss some other misconceptions about our meta-analysis, as well as some divergent views about the integrity test literature in general. Overall, we stand by our research question, methods, and results, which suggest that the validity of integrity tests for criteria such as job performance and counterproductive work behavior is weaker than the authors of the critiques appear to believe.