John E. Hunter

Bio: John E. Hunter is an academic researcher from Michigan State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Job performance & Test validity. The author has an hindex of 69, co-authored 174 publications receiving 28653 citations. Previous affiliations of John E. Hunter include University of Iowa.

Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings

Abstract: PART ONE: INTRODUCTION TO META-ANALYSIS Integrating Research Findings Across Studies Study Artifacts and Their Impact on Study Outcomes PART TWO: META-ANALYSIS OF CORRELATIONS Meta-Analysis of Correlations Corrected Individually for Artifacts Meta-Analysis of Correlations Using Artifact Distributions Technical Questions in Meta-Analysis of Correlations PART THREE: META-ANALYSIS OF EXPERIMENTAL EFFECTS AND OTHER DICHOTOMOUS COMPARISONS Treatment Effects Experimental Artifacts and Their Impact Meta-Analysis Methods for d Values Technical Questions in Meta-Analysis of d Values PART FOUR: GENERAL ISSUES IN META-ANALYSIS Second Order Sampling Error and Related Issues Cumulation of Findings within Studies Methods of Integrating Findings Across Studies Locating, Selecting, and Evaluating Studies General Criticisms of Meta-Analysis Summary of Psychometric Meta-Analysis

The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.

Abstract: This article summarizes the practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research in personnel selection. On the basis of meta-analytic findings, this article presents the validity of 19 selection procedures for predicting job performance and training performance and the validity of paired combinations of general mental ability (GMA) and Ihe 18 other selection procedures. Overall, the 3 combinations with the highest multivariate validity and utility for job performance were GMA plus a work sample test (mean validity of .63), GMA plus an integrity test (mean validity of .65), and GMA plus a structured interview (mean validity of .63). A further advantage of the latter 2 combinations is that they can be used for both entry level selection and selection of experienced employees. The practical utility implications of these summary findings are substantial. The implications of these research findings for the development of theories of job performance are discussed. From the point of view of practical value, the most important property of a personnel assessment method is predictive validity: the ability to predict future job performance, job-related learning (such as amount of learning in training and development programs), and other criteria. The predictive validity coefficient is directly proportional to the practical economic value (utility) of the assessment method (Brogden, 1949; Schmidt, Hunter, McKenzie, & Muldrow, 1979). Use of hiring methods with increased predictive validity leads to substantial increases in employee performance as measured in percentage increases in output, increased monetary value of output, and increased learning of job-related skills (Hunter, Schmidt, & Judiesch, 1990). Today, the validity of different personnel measures can be determined with the aid of 85 years of research. The most wellknown conclusion from this research is that for hiring employees without previous experience in the job the most valid predictor of future performance and learning is general mental ability ([GMA], i.e., intelligence or general cognitive ability; Hunter & Hunter, 1984; Ree & Earles, 1992). GMA can be measured using commercially available tests. However, many other measures can also contribute to the overall validity of the selection process. These include, for example, measures of

Validity and Utility of Alternative Predictors of Job Performance

Abstract: Meta-analysis of the cumulative research on various predictors of job performance shows that for entry-level jobs there is no predictor with validity equal to that of ability, which has a mean validity of .53. For selection on the basis of current job performance, the work sample test, with mean validity of .54, is slightly better. For federal entry-level jobs, substitution of an alternative predictor would cost from $3.12 billion (job tryout) to $15.89 billion per year (age). Hiring on ability has a utility of $15.61 billion per year, but affects minority groups adversely. Hiring on ability by quotas would decrease this utility by 5%. A third strategy—using a low cutoff score—would decrease utility by 83%. Using other predictors in conjunction with ability tests might improve validity and reduce adverse impact, but there is as yet no data base for studying this possibility.

Methods of Meta-Analysis

Abstract: Methods of Meta-Analysis , Methods of Meta-Analysis , کتابخانه مرکزی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی ایران

Meta-Analysis: Cumulating Research Findings Across Studies

Abstract: Meta-analysis is a way of synthesizing previous research on a subject in order to assess what has already been learned, and even to derive new conclusions from the mass of already researched data. In the opinion of many social scientists, it offers hope for a truly cumulative social scientific knowledge.

Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach

Abstract: In this article, we provide guidance for substantive researchers on the use of structural equation modeling in practice for theory testing and development. We present a comprehensive, two-step modeling approach that employs a series of nested models and sequential chi-square difference tests. We discuss the comparative advantages of this approach over a one-step approach. Considerations in specification, assessment of fit, and respecification of measurement models using confirmatory factor analysis are reviewed. As background to the two-step approach, the distinction between exploratory and confirmatory analysis, the distinction between complementary approaches for theory testing versus predictive application, and some developments in estimation methods also are discussed.

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Research Methods in Education

Abstract: Part One: The Context Of Educational Research Part Two: Planning Educational Research Part Three: Styles Of Educational Research Part Four: Strategies And Instruments For Data Collection And Researching Part Five: Data Analysis

Meta-Analysis: A Constantly Evolving Research Integration Tool

Abstract: During the past 30 years, meta-analysis has been an indispensable tool for revealing the hidden meaning of our research literatures. The four articles in this special section on meta-analysis illus...

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.