IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v10y2017i03p495-501_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Generalizability Versus Situational Specificity in Adverse Impact Analysis: Issues in Data Aggregation

Author

Listed:
  • Howard, Elizabeth
  • Morris, Scott B.
  • Dunleavy, Eric

Abstract

Tett, Hundley, and Christiansen (2017) argue that the concept of validity generalization in meta-analysis is a myth, as the variability of the effect size appears to decrease with increasing moderator specificity such that the level of precision needed to deem an estimate “generalizable†is actually reached at levels of situational specificity that are so high as to (paradoxically) refute an inference of generalizability. This notion highlights the need to move away from claiming that effects are either “generalizable†or “situationally specific†and instead look more critically and less dichotomously at degrees of generalizability, or effect size variability.

Suggested Citation

  • Howard, Elizabeth & Morris, Scott B. & Dunleavy, Eric, 2017. "Generalizability Versus Situational Specificity in Adverse Impact Analysis: Issues in Data Aggregation," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 495-501, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:10:y:2017:i:03:p:495-501_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942617000487/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:10:y:2017:i:03:p:495-501_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.