The Journal of applied psychology
-
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. ⋯ 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.
-
Multicenter Study
Doing the right thing without being told: joint effects of initiative climate and general self-efficacy on employee proactive customer service performance.
We developed and tested a cross-level model of the antecedents and outcomes of proactive customer service performance. Results from a field study of 900 frontline service employees and their supervisors in 74 establishments of a multinational hotel chain located in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia demonstrated measurement equivalence and suggested that, after controlling for service climate, initiative climate at the establishment level and general self-efficacy at the individual level predicted employee proactive customer service performance and interacted in a synergistic way. Results also showed that at the establishment level, controlling for service climate and collective general service performance, initiative climate was positively and indirectly associated with customer service satisfaction through the mediation of aggregated proactive customer service performance. We discuss important theoretical and practical implications of these findings.
-
This study empirically examined the proposition that supervisors' exchange relationships with their own supervisors (i.e., leader-leader exchange, or LLX) are related to their subordinates' work-related outcomes through 3 mechanisms: (a) leaders modeling their LLX to develop and maintain their exchange relationships with their subordinates (i.e., leader-member exchange, or LMX), (b) motivating the team and its members, captured by team and individual empowerment, and (c) facilitating the relationships between LMX and individual outcomes. Analyses of multisource and lagged data from 104 team supervisors and 577 subordinates showed that LMX mediated the positive relationship of LLX on subordinates' individual empowerment. ⋯ The authors also found that the indirect relationships of LMX with job satisfaction and job performance via individual empowerment were stronger when LLX was higher. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
-
Examination 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. ⋯ 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.
-
We 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. ⋯ 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.