• Paul R Sackett and Neal Schmitt.
• Department of Psychology, N218 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0344, USA. psackett@umn.edu
• J Appl Psychol. 2012 May 1; 97 (3): 550-6.

AbstractWe react to the Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau (2012a) meta-analysis of the relationship between integrity test scores and work-related criteria, the earlier Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (1993) meta-analysis of those relationships, the Harris et al. (2012) and Ones, Viswesvaran, and Schmidt (2012) responses, and the Van Iddekinge, Roth, Raymark, and Odle-Dusseau (2012b) rebuttal. We highlight differences between the findings of the 2 meta-analyses by focusing on studies that used predictive designs, applicant samples, and non-self-report criteria. We conclude that study exclusion criteria, correction for artifacts, and second order sampling error are not likely explanations for the differences in findings. The lack of detailed documentation of all effect size estimates used in either meta-analysis makes it impossible to ascertain the bases for the differences in findings. We call for increased detail in meta-analytic reporting and for better information sharing among the parties producing and meta-analytically integrating validity evidence.(PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

11 keywords...

hide…