Cargando…

The Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: A Systematic Review

Objective: The goal of this systematic review was to examine the reporting quality of the method section of quantitative systematic reviews and meta-analyses from 2009 to 2016 in the field of industrial and organizational psychology with the help of the Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (MARS), and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schalken, Naomi, Rietbergen, Charlotte
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5572251/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28878704
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01395
_version_ 1783259490350530560
author Schalken, Naomi
Rietbergen, Charlotte
author_facet Schalken, Naomi
Rietbergen, Charlotte
author_sort Schalken, Naomi
collection PubMed
description Objective: The goal of this systematic review was to examine the reporting quality of the method section of quantitative systematic reviews and meta-analyses from 2009 to 2016 in the field of industrial and organizational psychology with the help of the Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (MARS), and to update previous research, such as the study of Aytug et al. (2012) and Dieckmann et al. (2009). Methods: A systematic search for quantitative systematic reviews and meta-analyses was conducted in the top 10 journals in the field of industrial and organizational psychology between January 2009 and April 2016. Data were extracted on study characteristics and items of the method section of MARS. A cross-classified multilevel model was analyzed, to test whether publication year and journal impact factor (JIF) were associated with the reporting quality scores of articles. Results: Compliance with MARS in the method section was generally inadequate in the random sample of 120 articles. Variation existed in the reporting of items. There were no significant effects of publication year and journal impact factor (JIF) on the reporting quality scores of articles. Conclusions: The reporting quality in the method section of systematic reviews and meta-analyses was still insufficient, therefore we recommend researchers to improve the reporting in their articles by using reporting standards like MARS.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5572251
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55722512017-09-06 The Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: A Systematic Review Schalken, Naomi Rietbergen, Charlotte Front Psychol Psychology Objective: The goal of this systematic review was to examine the reporting quality of the method section of quantitative systematic reviews and meta-analyses from 2009 to 2016 in the field of industrial and organizational psychology with the help of the Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (MARS), and to update previous research, such as the study of Aytug et al. (2012) and Dieckmann et al. (2009). Methods: A systematic search for quantitative systematic reviews and meta-analyses was conducted in the top 10 journals in the field of industrial and organizational psychology between January 2009 and April 2016. Data were extracted on study characteristics and items of the method section of MARS. A cross-classified multilevel model was analyzed, to test whether publication year and journal impact factor (JIF) were associated with the reporting quality scores of articles. Results: Compliance with MARS in the method section was generally inadequate in the random sample of 120 articles. Variation existed in the reporting of items. There were no significant effects of publication year and journal impact factor (JIF) on the reporting quality scores of articles. Conclusions: The reporting quality in the method section of systematic reviews and meta-analyses was still insufficient, therefore we recommend researchers to improve the reporting in their articles by using reporting standards like MARS. Frontiers Media S.A. 2017-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5572251/ /pubmed/28878704 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01395 Text en Copyright © 2017 Schalken and Rietbergen. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Schalken, Naomi
Rietbergen, Charlotte
The Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: A Systematic Review
title The Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: A Systematic Review
title_full The Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr The Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed The Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: A Systematic Review
title_short The Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: A Systematic Review
title_sort reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in industrial and organizational psychology: a systematic review
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5572251/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28878704
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01395
work_keys_str_mv AT schalkennaomi thereportingqualityofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesinindustrialandorganizationalpsychologyasystematicreview
AT rietbergencharlotte thereportingqualityofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesinindustrialandorganizationalpsychologyasystematicreview
AT schalkennaomi reportingqualityofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesinindustrialandorganizationalpsychologyasystematicreview
AT rietbergencharlotte reportingqualityofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesinindustrialandorganizationalpsychologyasystematicreview