• Deniz S Ones, Chockalingam Viswesvaran, and Frank L Schmidt.
• Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. deniz.s.ones-1@tc.umn.edu
• J Appl Psychol. 2012 May 1; 97 (3): 537-42.

AbstractExamination of the Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau (2012) meta-analysis reveals a number of problems. They meta-analyzed a partial database of integrity test validities. An examination of their coded database revealed that measures coded as integrity tests and meta-analyzed as such often included scales that are not in fact integrity tests. In addition, there were important deficiencies in their analytic approach relating to application of range restriction corrections and identification of moderators. We found the absence of fully hierarchical moderator analyses to be a serious weakness. We also explain why empirical comparisons between test publishers versus non-publishers cannot unambiguously lead to inferences of bias, as alternate explanations are possible, even likely. In light of the problems identified, it appears that the conclusions about integrity test validity drawn by Van Iddekinge et al. cannot be considered accurate or reliable.(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

11 keywords...

hide…