Meta-analytic Reviews in the Organizational Sciences: Two Meta-analytic Schools on the Way to MARS (the Meta-analytic Reporting Standards) (original) (raw)

2013, Journal of Business and Psychology

Purpose The purpose of this study was to review the Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (MARS) of the American Psychological Association (APA) and highlight opportunities for improvement of meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences. Design/Methodology/Approach The paper reviews MARS, describes ''best'' meta-analytic practices across two schools of meta-analysis, and shows how implementing such practices helps achieve the aims set forth in MARS. Examples of best practices are provided to aid readers in finding models for their own research. Implications/Value Meta-analytic reviews are a primary avenue for the accumulation of knowledge in the organizational sciences as well as many other areas of science. Unfortunately, many meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences do not fully follow professional guidelines and standards as closely as they should. Such deviations from best practice undermine the transparency and replicability of the reviews and thus their usefulness for the generation of cumulative knowledge and evidence-based practice. This study shows how implementing ''best'' meta-analytic practices helps to achieve the aims set forth in MARS. Although the paper is written primarily for organizational scientists, the paper's recommendations are not limited to any particular scientific domain. Keywords Systematic review Á Psychometric metaanalysis Á Hedges and Olkin tradition of meta-analysis Á Organizational sciences Á Medical sciences Systematic reviews using meta-analysis are a primary avenue for the development of cumulative knowledge in the organizational sciences. They affect new theoretical developments (Viswesvaran and Sanchez 1998), direct research agendas (Cooper and Hedges 2009; Hunter and Schmidt 2004), and provide organizations with evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions and people management practices (Briner and Rousseau 2011; Le et al. 2007). Thus, such reviews guide the organizational sciences toward evidence-based practice (Briner and Denyer 2012; Briner and Rousseau 2011). However, meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences often fall short of their potential, which can undermine their usefulness (e.g., Aytug et al. 2011; Briner and Denyer 2012; Geyskens et al. 2009). Recently, the American Psychological Association (APA 2008, 2010) issued their Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (MARS). These standards facilitate two objectives. First, MARS is a vehicle by which psychology-related disciplines, including the organizational sciences, can share common meta-analytic practices across disciplines. Second, MARS allows for discipline-specific priorities. Some methodological aspects of a meta-analytic review may be more critical to one discipline than another. Thus, MARS calls for a common structure while allowing for some flexibility.