Biomedical subjects

José M Cortina

Publications and source records attributed to José M Cortina.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

A meta-analytic investigation of conscientiousness in the prediction of job performance: examining the intercorrelations and the incremental validity of narrow traits.

Researchers of broad and narrow traits have debated whether narrow traits are important to consider in the prediction of job performance. Because personality-performance relationship meta-analyses have focused almost exclusively on the Big Five, the predictive power of narrow traits has not been adequately examined. In this study, the authors address this question by meta-analytically examining the degree to which the narrow traits of conscientiousness predict above and beyond global conscientiousness. Results suggest that narrow traits do incrementally predict performance above and beyond global conscientiousness, yet the degree to which they contribute depends on the particular performance criterion and occupation in question. Overall, the results of this study suggest that there are benefits to considering the narrow traits of conscientiousness in the prediction of performance.

Attitude↗

PubMed2005

A comment on sampling error in the standardized mean difference with unequal sample sizes: avoiding potential errors in meta-analytic and primary research.

The authors discuss potential confusion in conducting primary studies and meta-analyses on the basis of differences between groups. First, the authors show that a formula for the sampling error of the standardized mean difference (d) that is based on equal group sample sizes can produce substantially biased results if applied with markedly unequal group sizes. Second, the authors show that the same concerns are present when primary analyses or meta-analyses are conducted with point-biserial correlations, as the point-biserial correlation (r) is a transformation of d. Third, the authors examine the practice of correcting a point-biserial r for unequal sample sizes and note that such correction would also increase the sampling error of the corrected r. Correcting rs for unequal sample sizes, but using the standard formula for sampling error in uncorrected r, can result in bias. The authors offer a set of recommendations for conducting meta-analyses of group differences.

Humans↗