Industrial-organizational psychology Evaluate a Meta-Analysis
A meta-analysis is a research method used to analyze data from multiple studies to draw
conclusions about a particular topic. This method is often used in psychology, as it allows for a
more comprehensive understanding of a given topic. In the context of this paper, a meta-analysis
was conducted to assess the validity of ipsative and quasi-ipsative forced-choice personality
inventories for different occupational groups. The meta-analysis included data from 37 studies,
which were all published between the years 2000 and 2014.
The first step in conducting a meta-analysis is to identify all of the studies that are relevant
to the topic of interest. In this case, the authors searched for all studies that had been published
on the topic of ipsative and quasi-ipsative forced-choice personality inventories. Once all of the
relevant studies had been identified, the next step was to select the studies that would be included
in the meta-analysis (Salgado, 2015). The inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis were that the
studies had to be published in a peer-reviewed journal and that they had to be written in English.
In total, 37 studies met these criteria and were included in the meta-analysis.
The next step in conducting a meta-analysis is extracting the selected studies’ data. In this
case, the authors extracted data on the type of inventory used (ipsative or quasi-ipsative), the
occupational group being assessed, the validity coefficient that was reported, and the year in
which the study was published. Once all the relevant data had been extracted, the next step was
to analyze the data.
The first step in analyzing the data was calculating the weighted average validity
coefficient for each type of inventory. The weighted average is a measure of central tendency
that considers the number of studies that reported a given validity coefficient. This step was
important to compare the different types of inventory across all of the studies.The next step in analyzing the data was calculating the effect size for each study. The
effect size measures the magnitude of the difference between the compared groups. In this case,
the effect size was calculated for the difference between the ipsative and quasi-ipsative
inventories. This step was important to determine whether there was a significant difference
between the two types of inventory.
The final step in analyzing the data was to conduct a meta-regression. This statistical
technique is used to examine the relationship between the effect size and the year in which the
study was published. This step was important to determine if there was a trend in the results over
time. Overall, the meta-analysis found that ipsative inventories were more valid than quasi-
ipsative inventories for all occupational groups (Salgado, 2015). In addition, the meta-analysis
found that the effect size for the difference between the two types of inventory was small but
significantly different from zero. Finally, the meta-regression found no significant trend in the
results over time.
The implications of the results of the Salgado et al. study are far-reaching. For one, the
study provides strong evidence for the validity of ipsative and quasi-ipsative forced-choice
personality inventories for different occupational groups. In other words, these types of
personality assessments can be useful in predicting job performance and satisfaction for
employees in various occupations.
Furthermore, the study’s findings affect how organizations select and train employees. In
particular, the study’s results suggest that personality assessments can be useful in identifying
which applicants are likely to be successful in a given occupation. Additionally, the study’s
findings suggest that personality assessments can be used to identify which employees would
benefit from training in specific areas. The study’s findings have implications for ho

organizations select and train employees. In particular, the study’s results suggest that
personality assessments can be useful in predicting job performance and satisfaction for
employees in various occupations.
The meta-analysis included 37 studies that examined the validity of ipsative and quasi-
ipsative forced-choice personality inventories for various occupational groups. The common test
statistic that was calculated was Cohen’s d, which is a measure of the effect size (Salgado, 2015).
The meta-analysis results showed that the ipsative and quasi-ipsative forced-choice personality
inventories were both valid personality measures for various occupational groups. The results
also showed no significant differences between the two types of inventories regarding their
validity.
Several moderators were investigated in the meta-analysis, including the type of
occupation, the type of inventory, and the country in which the study was conducted. The meta-
analysis results showed that the type of occupation did not significantly affect the validity of the
ipsative or quasi-ipsative inventories. The results also showed that the type of inventory (ipsative
or quasi-ipsative) did not significantly affect the inventories’ validity (Salgado, 2015). Finally,
the results showed that the country where the study was conducted did not significantly affect the
inventories’ validity.
The meta-analysis showed that the ipsative and quasi-ipsative forced-choice personality
inventories are both valid measures of personality for various occupational groups. The results
also showed no significant differences between the two types of inventories regarding their
validity. These results suggest that these types of inventories can be used interchangeably for the
assessment of personality in a variety of different occupational groups.