scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Avraham N. Kluger

Bio: Avraham N. Kluger is an academic researcher from Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The author has contributed to research in topics: Active listening & Psychology. The author has an hindex of 27, co-authored 60 publications receiving 9592 citations. Previous affiliations of Avraham N. Kluger include Rutgers University & Bar-Ilan University.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, KlUGER and Denisi analyzed all the major reasons to reject a paper from the meta-analysis, even though the decision to exclude a paper came at the first identification of a missing inclusion criterion.
Abstract: the total number of papers may exceed 10,000. Nevertheless, cost consideration forced us to consider mostly published papers and technical reports in English. 4 Formula 4 in Seifert (1991) is in error—a multiplier of n, of cell size, is missing in the numerator. 5 Unfortunately, the technique of meta-analysis cannot be applied, at present time, to such effects because the distribution of dis based on a sampling of people, whereas the statistics of techniques such as ARIMA are based on the distribution of a sampling of observations in the time domain regardless of the size of the people sample involved (i.e., there is no way to compare a sample of 100 points in time with a sample of 100 people). That is, a sample of 100 points in time has the same degrees of freedom if it were based on an observation of 1 person or of 1,000 people. 258 KLUGER AND DENISI From the papers we reviewed, only 131 (5%) met the criteria for inclusion. We were concerned that, given the small percentage of usable papers, our conclusions might not fairly represent the larger body of relevant literature. Therefore, we analyzed all the major reasons to reject a paper from the meta-analysis, even though the decision to exclude a paper came at the first identification of a missing inclusion criterion. This analysis showed the presence of review articles, interventions of natural feedback removal, and papers that merely discuss feedback, which in turn suggests that the included studies represent 1015% of the empirical FI literature. However, this analysis also showed that approximately 37% of the papers we considered manipulated feedback without a control group and that 16% reported confounded treatments, that is, roughly two thirds of the empirical FI literature cannot shed light on the question of FI effects on performance—a fact that requires attention from future FI researchers. Of the usable 131 papers (see references with asterisks), 607 effect sizes were extracted. These effects were based on 12,652 participants and 23,663 observations (reflecting multiple observations per participant). The average sample size per effect was 39 participants. The distribution of the effect sizes is presented in Figure 1. The weighted mean (weighted by sample size) of this distribution is 0.41, suggesting that, on average, FI has a moderate positive effect on performance. However, over 38% of the effects were negative (see Figure 1). The weighted variance of this distribution is 0.97, whereas the estimate of the sampling error variance is only 0.09. A potential problem in meta-analyses is a violation of the assumption of independence. Such a violation occurs either when multiple observations are taken from the same study (Rosenthal, 1984) or when several papers are authored by the same person (Wolf, 1986). In the present investigation, there were 91 effects derived from the laboratory experiments reported by Mikulincer (e.g., 1988a, 1988b). This raises the possibility that the average effect size is biased, because his studies manipulated extreme negative FIs and used similar tasks. In fact, the weighted average d in Mikulincer's studies was —0.39; whereas in the remainder of the

5,126 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors focused on another concept, core self-evaluations, which were hypothesized to comprise self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and nonneuroticism.
Abstract: Past research has suggested that dispositional sources of job satisfaction can be traced to measures of affective temperament. The present research focused on another concept, core self-evaluations, which were hypothesized to comprise self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and nonneuroticism. A model hypothesized that core self-evaluations would have direct effects on job and life satisfaction. It also was hypothesized that core self-evaluations would have indirect effects on job satisfaction. Data were collected from 3 independent samples in 2 countries, using dual source methodology. Results indicated that core self-evaluations had direct and indirect effects on job and life satisfaction. The statistical and logical relationship among core evaluations, affective disposition, and satisfaction was explored.

1,705 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present specific conditions under which feedback might be less effective, or even harmful, and discuss the implications of their results and model for designing of interventions aimed at improving performance.
Abstract: Executive Overview Performance feedback is an important part of many organizational interventions. Managers typically assume that providing employees with feedback about their performance makes it more likely that performance on the job will be improved. Despite the prevalence of feedback mechanisms in management interventions, however, feedback is not always as effective as is typically assumed. In this article, we present specific conditions under which feedback might be less effective, or even harmful. We then discuss the implications of our results and model for designing of interventions aimed at improving performance, and focus more narrowly on 360-degree appraisal systems. After arguing that these systems typically have design characteristics that reduce effectiveness, we conclude with recommendations for improving their effectiveness. We also emphasize the need for systematic evaluations of feedback interventions.

389 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Kluger and DeNisi as discussed by the authors found that although feedback intervention improves performance on average, it does not improve performance in more than one third of the cases, contrary to the common belief that feedback intervention most often improves performance.
Abstract: Feedback intervention (FI), that is, providing people with some in formation regarding their task per formance, is one of the mostly widely applied psychological inter ventions. Yet there is a growing body of evidence that such inter ventions yield highly variable ef fects on performance (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Latham & Locke, 1991; Salmoni, Schmidt, & Walter, 1984). Indeed, in a meta-analysis, we found that although Fis improve performance on average, they re duce performance in more than one third of the cases (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; see Fig. 1). The latter fact is contrary to the common be lief that Fis most often improve performance. Furthermore, we (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996) found no evidence that information about

303 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Higgins et al. as mentioned in this paper investigated the possible three-way interaction between situational regulatory focus, chronic regulatory focus and feedback sign, and concluded that relatively high levels of motivation are induced either by failure under prevention focus (failure to meet obligations) or by success under promotion focus (fulfilling a desire).
Abstract: Quoi qu’en pense le sens commun qui incite a croire que le feedback (positif vs negatif) a des retombees decisives sur la motivation, l’enemble de la litterature n’apporte pas d’informations claires precisant quand et comment le feedback positif ou negatif accroit ou abaisse la motivation (voir par exemple Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). La variabilite dans l’impact du feedback peut etre expliquee par la theorie de l’autoregulation (Higgins, 1997, 1998). Plus precisement, des niveaux relativement eleves de motivation sont provoques aussi bien par l’echec sous focalisation de prevention (manquer a ses obligations) que par le succes sous focalisation de promotion (realiser un desir). Au cours de deux experiences, la focalisation regulatrice a ete operationnalisee par une manipulation des facteurs de situation (scenarios) et par trois mesures de differences individuelles (les valuers, les professions et les raisons de choisir tel emploi). Les resultats de ces travaux confirment les hypotheses avec les differentes operationnalisations. D’autres experiences devraient explorer la probable interaction triple entre la focalisation regulatrice de situation, la focalisation regulatrice chronique et la feedback. Despite our common sense notion that indicates that feedback sign (positive vs. negative) has a decisive effect on motivation, the vast literature has no clear specifications regarding when and how positive (negative) feedback increases or decreases motivation (e.g. Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). The variability in feedback sign effects can be explained by self-regulation theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998). Specifically, relatively high levels of motivation are induced either by failure under prevention focus (failure to meet obligations) or by success under promotion focus (fulfilling a desire). In two experiments, regulatory focus was operationalised by a manipulation of situational factors (scenarios) and by three measures of individual differences (values, occupations, and the motives for choosing one's job). Results from these experiments corroborated the hypotheses with all the different operationalisations. Future experiments should investigate the possible three-way interaction between situational regulatory focus, chronic regulatory focus, and feedback sign.

282 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper provided a conceptual analysis of feedback and reviewed the evidence related to its impact on learning and achievement, and suggested ways in which feedback can be used to enhance its effectiveness in classrooms.
Abstract: Feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement, but this impact can be either positive or negative. Its power is frequently mentioned in articles about learning and teaching, but surprisingly few recent studies have systematically investigated its meaning. This article provides a conceptual analysis of feedback and reviews the evidence related to its impact on learning and achievement. This evidence shows that although feedback is among the major influences, the type of feedback and the way it is given can be differentially effective. A model of feedback is then proposed that identifies the particular properties and circumstances that make it effective, and some typically thorny issues are discussed, including the timing of feedback and the effects of positive and negative feedback. Finally, this analysis is used to suggest ways in which feedback can be used to enhance its effectiveness in classrooms.

7,222 citations

Book
19 Nov 2008
TL;DR: This meta-analyses presents a meta-analysis of the contributions from the home, the school, and the curricula to create a picture of visible teaching and visible learning in the post-modern world.
Abstract: Preface Chapter 1 The challenge Chapter 2 The nature of the evidence: A synthesis of meta-analyses Chapter 3 The argument: Visible teaching and visible learning Chapter 4: The contributions from the student Chapter 5 The contributions from the home Chapter 6 The contributions from the school Chapter 7 The contributions from the teacher Chapter 8 The contributions from the curricula Chapter 9 The contributions from teaching approaches - I Chapter 10 The contributions from teaching approaches - II Chapter 11: Bringing it all together Appendix A: The 800 meta-analyses Appendix B: The meta-analyses by rank order References

6,776 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A review of the literature on classroom formative assessment can be found in this article, where the authors consider the perceptions of students and their role in self-assessment alongside analysis of the strategies used by teachers and the formative strategies incorporated in such systemic approaches as mastery learning.
Abstract: This article is a review of the literature on classroom formative assessment. Several studies show firm evidence that innovations designed to strengthen the frequent feedback that students receive about their learning yield substantial learning gains. The perceptions of students and their role in self‐assessment are considered alongside analysis of the strategies used by teachers and the formative strategies incorporated in such systemic approaches as mastery learning. There follows a more detailed and theoretical analysis of the nature of feedback, which provides a basis for a discussion of the development of theoretical models for formative assessment and of the prospects for the improvement of practice.

6,483 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, KlUGER and Denisi analyzed all the major reasons to reject a paper from the meta-analysis, even though the decision to exclude a paper came at the first identification of a missing inclusion criterion.
Abstract: the total number of papers may exceed 10,000. Nevertheless, cost consideration forced us to consider mostly published papers and technical reports in English. 4 Formula 4 in Seifert (1991) is in error—a multiplier of n, of cell size, is missing in the numerator. 5 Unfortunately, the technique of meta-analysis cannot be applied, at present time, to such effects because the distribution of dis based on a sampling of people, whereas the statistics of techniques such as ARIMA are based on the distribution of a sampling of observations in the time domain regardless of the size of the people sample involved (i.e., there is no way to compare a sample of 100 points in time with a sample of 100 people). That is, a sample of 100 points in time has the same degrees of freedom if it were based on an observation of 1 person or of 1,000 people. 258 KLUGER AND DENISI From the papers we reviewed, only 131 (5%) met the criteria for inclusion. We were concerned that, given the small percentage of usable papers, our conclusions might not fairly represent the larger body of relevant literature. Therefore, we analyzed all the major reasons to reject a paper from the meta-analysis, even though the decision to exclude a paper came at the first identification of a missing inclusion criterion. This analysis showed the presence of review articles, interventions of natural feedback removal, and papers that merely discuss feedback, which in turn suggests that the included studies represent 1015% of the empirical FI literature. However, this analysis also showed that approximately 37% of the papers we considered manipulated feedback without a control group and that 16% reported confounded treatments, that is, roughly two thirds of the empirical FI literature cannot shed light on the question of FI effects on performance—a fact that requires attention from future FI researchers. Of the usable 131 papers (see references with asterisks), 607 effect sizes were extracted. These effects were based on 12,652 participants and 23,663 observations (reflecting multiple observations per participant). The average sample size per effect was 39 participants. The distribution of the effect sizes is presented in Figure 1. The weighted mean (weighted by sample size) of this distribution is 0.41, suggesting that, on average, FI has a moderate positive effect on performance. However, over 38% of the effects were negative (see Figure 1). The weighted variance of this distribution is 0.97, whereas the estimate of the sampling error variance is only 0.09. A potential problem in meta-analyses is a violation of the assumption of independence. Such a violation occurs either when multiple observations are taken from the same study (Rosenthal, 1984) or when several papers are authored by the same person (Wolf, 1986). In the present investigation, there were 91 effects derived from the laboratory experiments reported by Mikulincer (e.g., 1988a, 1988b). This raises the possibility that the average effect size is biased, because his studies manipulated extreme negative FIs and used similar tasks. In fact, the weighted average d in Mikulincer's studies was —0.39; whereas in the remainder of the

5,126 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The results indicated that feedback may be more effective when baseline performance is low, the source is a supervisor or colleague, it is provided more than once, and the role of context and the targeted clinical behaviour was assessed.
Abstract: Background Audit and feedback continues to be widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice. It appears logical that healthcare professionals would be prompted to modify their practice if given feedback that their clinical practice was inconsistent with that of their peers or accepted guidelines. Yet, audit and feedback has not been found to be consistently effective. Objectives To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's register up to January 2001. This was supplemented with searches of MEDLINE and reference lists, which did not yield additional relevant studies. Selection criteria Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as any summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken. Main results We included 85 studies, 48 of which have been added to the previous version of this review. There were 52 comparisons of dichotomous outcomes from 47 trials with over 3500 health professionals that compared audit and feedback to no intervention. The adjusted RDs of non-compliance with desired practice varied from 0.09 (a 9% absolute increase in non-compliance) to 0.71 (a 71% decrease in non-compliance) (median = 0.07, inter-quartile range = 0.02 to 0.11). The one factor that appeared to predict the effectiveness of audit and feedback across studies was baseline non-compliance with recommended practice. Reviewer's conclusions Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. When it is effective, the effects are generally small to moderate. The absolute effects of audit and feedback are more likely to be larger when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low.

4,946 citations