Home Home | About Us | Sitemap | Contact  
  • Info For
  • Professionals
  • Students
  • Educators
  • Media
  • Search
    Powered By Google

Schmidt-Hunter Meta-Analysis Award

To recognize the best advances related to industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology as documented in published research in which meta-analysis is used. The publications must be dated during the prior 3 years (2014, 2015 or 2016).

This annual award, honoring Frank L. Schmidt and John E. Hunter, is given to a member of SIOP or team (with at least one member who is a SIOP member) whose work or research has been shown to advance industrial and organizational (I-O) psychology as documented in published research in which meta-analysis is used. Publications must be dated during 2014, 2015, or 2016.

The author(s) of the best published research in meta-analysis is (are) awarded a plaque and a $1,500 cash prize (to be split in the case of multiple authors).  Award recipient(s), if qualified, will be asked to serve a three-year term on this award subcommittee beginning the following year.

Guidelines for Submission of Research

  • Nominations may be submitted by any member of SIOP. Self-nominations are welcome.
     
  • The nomination letter must be unsigned.

  • Additional supporting letter(s), if applicable, are welcome.
     
  • Research projects or publications having multiple authors are acceptable (with at least one member who is a SIOP member).
     
  • Nominations must be submitted online.

Criteria for Evaluation of Research

These are the rules and criteria that will govern administration of the Award:

  1. The meta-analysis can be in any area of I-O psychology or in another discipline or sub-discipline if there are potential implications for I-O psychology, even if such implications are long term or remote.
     
  2. The emphasis in this award is on methodological quality and general conceptual and theoretical quality, rather than on established impact on the field of I-O psychology. This provision recognizes that fact that sufficient time for showing impact will typically not have elapsed at the time of nomination. However, if the article has already been highly cited, that factor may be considered.
     
  3. The meta-analysis must advance cumulative knowledge and have implications for the development of understanding and explanation.
     
  4. The meta-analysis results should have some implications for the practice of I-O psychology. These implications can be direct or indirect, immediate or anticipated for the future.
     
  5. Technical excellence must be shown. The meta-analysis should employ the best currently available psychometric meta-analysis methods (e.g., Schmidt & Hunter, 2015) and correct for relevant research artifacts that distort initially observed findings, including sampling error variance and measurement error (except that reliability generalization meta-analyses should not correct for measurement error), range restriction, dichotomization, construct validity incompleteness, etc., if these biasing artifacts are present and corrections are possible. The potential for publication bias should also be addressed. The meta-analysis should include a full explanation of why and how the corrections for the biases caused by research artifacts and biases were made, including the theoretical and construct-based justification for the corrections. Any moderator analyses should be consistent with the methods presented in Schmidt and Hunter (2015, Chapter 9), and in particular should show recognition of the advantages and disadvantages of meta-regression. All relevant meta-analysis results and statistics should be reported (cf. pages 489 – 493 of Schmidt and Hunter, 2015). Note that this precludes the use or reporting of statistical significance tests.
     
  6. Ideally, the published meta-analysis should contain full explanations of how the criteria above (criteria 1 through 5) are met. In addition, the nominating letter might address the technical excellence of the nominated article. If some of this information is missing, the awards committee may make inferences. For example, if the implications for practice are not spelled out, the awards committee may identify such implications and may make a judgment on this aspect.
     
  7. Articles that make important contributions to statistical, measurement, and mathematical methods in meta-analysis, as judged by the awards committee, can also be considered for this award. Such candidate articles should typically include example applications of the proposed methods to one or more real data sets.
     
  8. A meta-analysis nominated in a given year but not chosen will be considered again during the next award period, subject to the requirement of publication within the three previous calendar years. The time period for the award extends backwards in time for three years preceding the call for nominations for the award.
     
  9. Awards subcommittee members may nominate work at any time.

Please include supporting statement/documentation for each of the criteria stated above.

Administrative Procedures

  1. The Awards Chair will appoint a subcommittee to review the unsigned letter of nomination and supporting materials of all nominees and make a recommendation concerning the nominee(s) to the SIOP Executive Board.
     
  2. The awards subcommittee members will be current SIOP members with a reputation for knowledge of meta-analysis methods. The most recent award winner and/or earlier award winners may serve on the committee.
     
  3. The Executive Board may either endorse or reject the recommendations of the Awards Committee but may not substitute a nominee of its own. The Award Subcommittee members may not be recipients of the award during their tenure on the subcommittee.
     
  4. In the absence of a nominee who is deemed deserving of the award by both the Awards Committee and the Executive Board, the award may be withheld.

Updated: 24 Apr 2017