Submission Deadline May 30!
Two focal articles have recently been accepted for Volume 7, Issue 4, of SIOP’s journal, Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice. They are now available for comment on the SIOP website.
The deadline for commentary submissions is May 30, 2014.
The first focal article for this issue is “Corrections for Criterion Reliability in Validity Generalization: A False Prophet in a Land of Suspended Judgment” by James M. LeBreton, Kelly T. Scherer, and Lawrence R. James. The results of meta-analytic (MA) and validity generalization (VG) studies continue to be impressive. In contrast to earlier findings that capped the variance accounted for in job performance at roughly 16%, many recent studies suggest that a single predictor variable can account for between 16% and 36% of the variance in some aspect of job performance. This paper argues that this “enhancement” in variance accounted for is often attributable not to improvements in science but to a dumbing down of the standards for the values of statistics used in correction equations. With rare exceptions (cf. Murphy & DeShon, 2000a; Meriac, Hoffman, Woehr, & Fleisher, 2008), applied researchers have suspended judgment about what is and is not an acceptable threshold for criterion reliability in their quest for higher validities. The authors demonstrate a statistical dysfunction that is a direct result of using low criterion reliabilities in corrections for attenuation. Corrections typically applied to a single predictor in a VG study are instead applied to multiple predictors. A multiple correlation analysis is then conducted on corrected validity coefficients. It is shown that the corrections often used in single predictor studies yield a squared multiple correlation that appears suspect. Basically, the multiple predictor study exposes the tenuous statistical foundation of using abjectly low criterion reliabilities in single predictor VG studies. Recommendations for restoring scientific integrity to the meta-analyses that permeate I-O psychology are offered.
The second focal article is “Tempering Hard Times: Integrating Well-Being Metrics Into Utility Analysis” by Aharon Tziner, Erich C. Fein, and Assa Birati. This paper highlights the virtue of integrating well-being metrics (e.g., psychological well-being, perceived meaning) into aspects of utility analysis for the purpose of enhancing human resource management strategies and worker performance. The authors present the reader with a review of conceptual and practical developments in this field and examples of utility analysis calculations, while we advocate for the necessity of including well-being metrics in utility analysis for the 21st century. The basic thrust of this effort is to encourage the greater employment by managers of quantitative models that allow decision makers to generate all the factors needed to estimate long-term financial gains and/or losses before any intervention strategy is implemented in the workplace. As indicated, the use of quantitative models to estimate the net financial gains of using particular intervention strategies, accompanied with the value estimation of certain types of employee states (e.g., psychological well-being) and worker behaviors (e.g., employee turnover), can ultimately save companies from making gross tactical errors and, more positively, can assist management in promoting the organization’s long-term economic goals in conjunction with the enhanced well-being of employees.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice takes a focal article – peer commentary format, and commentaries are peer reviewed. We invite interested SIOP members to submit a commentary on either of these articles for consideration for publication. We hope to receive commentaries from a broad range of perspectives, including the science and practice communities, and U.S. and international perspectives.
The focal articles can be downloaded from the Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice page on the SIOP Web site. The journal page also contains details on the process of preparing and submitting a commentary. Please contact Editor Kevin Murphy at firstname.lastname@example.org with any questions about the commentary process.
Calling All Practitioners!
A Note From IOP Editor Kevin Murphy
In the short time since I became editor of this journal, one thing has become clear. I-O practitioners are not submitting focal articles or commentaries in numbers that come near to representing their presence in SIOP. As someone who has worked both in academics and practice, I appreciate that writing articles is valued and supported in some settings more than in others, but if we want IOP to be more than an academic discussion, we need your help. The perspectives of I-O psychologists who work in nonacademic settings are very valuable, but they will not be represented in this journal if practitioners do not engage more fully with the journal. Even if you work in a setting where there is no time and no support for writing a focal article, please scan the journal as new articles come out and contribute commentaries. We will be a better journal if the perspectives of I-O psychologists who are practitioners are better represented.
We look forward to your submissions!