The Malleability of Workplace‐Relevant Noncognitive Constructs: Empirical Evidence From 39 Meta‐Analyses and Reviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Michelle P. Martin‐Raugh ◽  
Kevin M. Williams ◽  
Jennifer Lentini
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Noncognitive Constructs

scholarly journals The meta-analyses of deliberate practice underestimate the effect size because they neglect the core characteristic of individualization—an analysis and empirical evidence

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Debatin ◽  
Manuel D. S. Hopp ◽  
Wilma Vialle ◽  
Albert Ziegler
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Deliberate Practice ◽  
High Level ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Open Question ◽  
Chess Players ◽  
Predictive Strength

AbstractInfluential meta-analyses have concluded that only a small to medium proportion of variance in performance can be explained by deliberate practice. We argue that the authors have neglected the most important characteristic of deliberate practice: individualization of practice. Many of the analyzed effect sizes derived from measures that did not assess individualized practice and, therefore, should not have been included in meta-analyses of deliberate practice. We present empirical evidence which suggests that the level of individualization and quality of practice (indicated by didactic educational capital) substantially influences the predictive strength of practice measures. In our study of 178 chess players, we found that at a high level of individualization and quality of practice, the effect size of structured practice was more than three times higher than that found at the average level. Our theoretical analysis, along with empirical results, support the claim that the explanatory power of deliberate practice has been considerably underestimated in the meta-analyses. The question of how important deliberate practice is for individual differences in performance remains an open question.

A Review and Evaluation of Meta-Analysis Practices in Management Research

2008 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 393-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inge Geyskens ◽  
Rekha Krishnan ◽  
Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp ◽  
Paulo V. Cunha
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Management Research ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Integrate Research ◽  
Made In

Meta-analysis has become increasingly popular in management research to quantitatively integrate research findings across a large number of studies. In an effort to help shape future applications of meta-analysis in management, this study chronicles and evaluates the decisions that management researchers made in 69 meta-analytic studies published between 1980 and 2007 in 14 management journals. It performs four meta-analyses of relationships that have been studied with varying frequency in management research, to provide empirical evidence that meta-analytical decisions influence results. The implications of the findings are discussed with a focus on the changes that seem appropriate.

The Effect of Corporate Environmental Performance on Corporate Financial Performance

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 425-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dietrich Earnhart
Keyword(s):  
Financial Performance ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Environmental Performance ◽  
Empirical Literature ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Corporate Environmental Performance ◽  
Financial Success ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Mature Market ◽  
Negative Link

This review explores the effect of corporate environmental performance on financial performance. In particular, it reviews the empirical evidence on this effect. Conceptually, stronger environmental performance may lead to worse or better financial performance. The empirical literature generally finds a positive link from good environmental performance to financial success. However, many studies reveal a negative link. Given this mixed evidence, literature reviews and meta-analyses help to discern the conditions under which better environmental performance prompts financial success or disappointment. Similarly, this review organizes the empirical evidence by the specific measures of environmental performance and financial performance to discern which links are positive or negative. Lastly, the review identifies shortcomings in the empirical literature and offers suggestions for future research. For example, analyses should more fully explore the factors shaping the links from environmental to financial performance, such as firm size and economy type (e.g., mature market).

scholarly journals Sex based subgroup differences in randomized controlled trials: empirical evidence from Cochrane meta-analyses

BMJ ◽  
2016 ◽  
pp. i5826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua D Wallach ◽  
Patrick G Sullivan ◽  
John F Trepanowski ◽  
Ewout W Steyerberg ◽  
John P A Ioannidis
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Subgroup Differences ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

Criminogenic risk assessment: A meta-review and critical analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 146247452110257
Author(s):  
Seth J Prins ◽  
Adam Reich
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Predictive Performance ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Practice Recommendations ◽  
Meta Review ◽  
Criminal Legal System ◽  
Meta Analyses

A vast body of research underlies the ascendancy of criminogenic risk assessment, which was developed to predict recidivism. It is unclear, however, whether the empirical evidence supports its expansion across the criminal legal system. This meta-review thus attempts to answer the following questions: 1) How well does criminogenic risk assessment differentiate people who are at high risk of recidivism from those at low risk of recidivism? 2) How well do researchers’ conclusions about (1) match the empirical evidence? 3) Does the empirical evidence support the theory, policy, and practice recommendations that researchers make based on their conclusions? A systematic literature search identified 39 meta-analyses and systematic reviews that met inclusion criteria. Findings from these meta-analyses and systematic reviews are summarized and synthesized, and their interpretations are critically assessed. We find that criminogenic risk assessment’s predictive performance is based on inappropriate statistics, and that conclusions about the evidence are inconsistent and often overstated. Three thematic areas of inferential overreach are identified: contestable inferences from criminalization to criminality, from prediction to explanation, and from prediction to intervention. We conclude by exploring possible reasons for the mismatch between proponents’ conclusions and the evidence, and discuss implications for policy and practice.

scholarly journals Systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between the heartbeat-evoked potential and interoception.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michel-Pierre Coll ◽  
Hannah Hobson ◽  
Jennifer Murphy
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Evoked Potential ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
The Body ◽  
Indirect Measures ◽  
Heartbeat Evoked Potential ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Relationship

The Heartbeat Evoked Potential (HEP) has been proposed as a neurophysiological marker of interoceptive processing. Despite its use to validate interoceptive measures and to assess interoceptive functioning in clinical groups, the empirical evidence for a relationship between HEP amplitude and interoceptive processing, including measures of such processing, is scattered across several studies with varied designs. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the body of HEP-interoception research, and consider the associations the HEP shows with various direct and indirect measures of interoception, and how it is affected by manipulations of interoceptive processing. Specifically, we assessed the effect on HEP amplitude of manipulating attention to the heartbeat; manipulating participants’ arousal; the association between the HEP and behavioural measures of cardiac interoception; and comparisons between healthy and clinical groups. Following database searches and screening, 45 studies were included in the systematic review and 42 in the meta-analyses. We noted variations in the ways individual studies have attempted to address key confounds, particularly the cardiac field artefact. Meta-analytic summaries indicated there were moderate to large effects of attention, arousal, and clinical status on the HEP, and a moderate association between HEP amplitude and behavioural measures of interoception. Problematically, the reliability of the meta-analytic effects documented here remain unknown, given the lack of standardised protocols for measuring the HEP. Thus, it is possible effects are driven by confounds such as cardiac factors or somatosensory effects.

scholarly journals The puzzling relationship between multi-lab replications and meta-analyses of the rest of the literature

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly Lewis ◽  
Maya B Mathur ◽  
Tyler VanderWeele ◽  
Michael C. Frank
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Psychological Phenomena ◽  
Analytic Estimate ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Size Estimates

What is the best way to estimate the size of important effects? Should we aggregate across disparate findings using statistical meta-analysis, or instead run large, multi-lab replications (MLR)? A recent paper by Kvarven, Strømland, and Johannesson (2020) compared effect size estimates derived from these two different methods for 15 different psychological phenomena. The authors report that, for the same phenomenon, the meta-analytic estimate tends to be about three times larger than the MLR estimate. These results pose an important puzzle: What is the relationship between these two estimates? Kvarven et al. suggest that their results undermine the value of meta-analysis. In contrast, we argue that both meta-analysis and MLR are informative, and that the discrepancy between estimates obtained via the two methods is in fact still unexplained. Informed by re-analyses of Kvarven et al.’s data and by other empirical evidence, we discuss possible sources of this discrepancy and argue that understanding the relationship between estimates obtained from these two methods is an important puzzle for future meta-scientific research.

scholarly journals Automated and partially-automated contact tracing: a rapid systematic review to inform the control of COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isobel Braithwaite ◽  
Tom Callender ◽  
Miriam Bullock ◽  
Robert W Aldridge
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Control Measures ◽  
Contact Tracing ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Transmission Reduction ◽  
Modelling Studies ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractBackgroundAutomated or partially-automated contact tracing tools are being deployed by many countries to contain SARS-CoV-2; however, the evidence base for their use is not well-established.MethodsWe undertook a rapid systematic review of automated or partially-automated contact tracing, registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020179822). We searched PubMed, EMBASE, OVID Global Health, EBSCO COVID Portal, Cochrane Library, medRxiv, bioRxiv, arXiv and Google Advanced for articles relevant to COVID-19, SARS, MERS, influenza or Ebola from 1/1/200014/4/2020. Two authors reviewed all full-text manuscripts. One reviewer extracted data using a pre-piloted form; a second independently verified extracted data. Primary outcomes were the number or proportion of contacts (and/or subsequent cases) identified; secondary outcomes were indicators of outbreak control, app/tool uptake, resource use, cost-effectiveness and lessons learnt. The Effective Public Health Practice Project tool or CHEERS checklist were used in quality assessment.Findings4,033 citations were identified and 15 were included. No empirical evidence of automated contact tracing’s effectiveness (regarding contacts identified or transmission reduction) was identified. Four of seven included modelling studies suggested that controlling COVID-19 requires high population uptake of automated contact-tracing apps (estimates from 56% to 95%), typically alongside other control measures. Studies of partially-automated contact tracing generally reported more complete contact identification and follow-up, and greater intervention timeliness (0.5-5 hours faster), than previous systems. No meta-analyses were possible.InterpretationAutomated contact tracing has potential to reduce transmission with sufficient population uptake and usage. However, there is an urgent need for well-designed prospective evaluations as no studies provided empirical evidence of its effectiveness.

scholarly journals CBT at the Crossroads: The Rise of Transdiagnostic Treatments

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carmen Schaeuffele ◽  
Ava Schulz ◽  
Christine Knaevelsrud ◽  
Babette Renneberg ◽  
Johanna Boettcher
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Theoretical Foundation ◽  
Specific Problem ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Heterogeneous Group ◽  
Novel Therapies ◽  
Future Developments ◽  
Problem Presentation ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractTransdiagnostic treatments span a heterogeneous group of interventions that target a wider range of disorders and can be applied to treat several disorders simultaneously. Several meta-analyses have highlighted the evidence base of these novel therapies. However, these meta-analyses adopt different definitions of transdiagnostic treatments, and the growing field of transdiagnostic therapies has become increasingly difficult to grasp. The current narrative review proposes a distinction of “one size fits all” unified and “my size fits me” individualized approaches within transdiagnostic therapies. Unified treatments are applied as “broadband” interventions to a range of disorders without tailoring to the individual, while individualized treatments are tailored to the specific problem presentation of the individual, e.g., by selecting modules within modular treatments. The underlying theoretical foundation and relevant empirical evidence for these different transdiagnostic approaches are examined. Advantages and limitations of the transdiagnostic treatments as well as future developments are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document