Meta-analytic Reviews in the Organizational Sciences: Two Meta-analytic Schools on the Way to MARS (the Meta-analytic Reporting Standards)

Purpose The purpose of this study was to review the Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (MARS) of the American Psychological Association (APA) and highlight opportunities for improvement of meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences. Design/Methodology/Approach The paper reviews MARS, descri...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of business and psychology 2013-06, Vol.28 (2), p.123-143
Main Authors: Kepes, Sven, McDaniel, Michael A., Brannick, Michael T., Banks, George C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Achievement tests
Analytical estimating
Applied psychology
Behavioral Science and Psychology
Best practice
Business and Management
Community and Environmental Psychology
Confidence interval
Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Interval estimators
Mars
Medical research
Meta analysis
Organizational behavior
Personality and Social Psychology
Psychological aspects
Psychology
Quantitative psychology
Recommendations
Sampling errors
Schools
Sensitivity analysis
Social Sciences
Statistical analysis
Statistical variance
Statistics
Studies
Systematic review
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose The purpose of this study was to review the Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (MARS) of the American Psychological Association (APA) and highlight opportunities for improvement of meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences. Design/Methodology/Approach The paper reviews MARS, describes "best" meta-analytic practices across two schools of meta-analysis, and shows how implementing such practices helps achieve the aims set forth in MARS. Examples of best practices are provided to aid readers in finding models for their own research. Implications/Value Meta-analytic reviews are a primary avenue for the accumulation of knowledge in the organizational sciences as well as many other areas of science. Unfortunately, many meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences do not fully follow professional guidelines and standards as closely as they should. Such deviations from best practice undermine the transparency and replicability of the reviews and thus their usefulness for the generation of cumulative knowledge and evidence-based practice. This study shows how implementing "best" meta-analytic practices helps to achieve the aims set forth in MARS. Although the paper is written primarily for organizational scientists, the paper's recommendations are not limited to any particular scientific domain.
ISSN:0889-3268
1573-353X
DOI:10.1007/s10869-013-9300-2