The cloud–based research synthesis platform metaBUS is presented as a tool for human resource development research. A general overview of the meta–analysis tool metaBUS is provided. In addition, this article shows how metaBUS can be utilized for other research purposes such as a starting point for identifying keywords when conducting literature reviews, checking the reliability of published instruments, and sourcing data for secondary data analyses.
BoscoF. A., AguinisH., SinghK., FieldJ. G., & PierceC. A. (2015a). Correlational effect size benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 431–449. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038047
2.
BoscoF. A., SteelP., OswaldF. L., UggerslevK. L., & FieldJ. G. (2015b). Cloud–based meta–analysis to bridge science and practice: Welcome to metaBUS.Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 3–17. Available at: http://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/pad/vol1/iss1/2
3.
BoscoF. A., UggerslevK. L., & SteelP. (2017). metaBUS as a vehicle for facilitating meta–analysis.Human Resource Management Review, 27, 237–254. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.013
4.
*ChenZ., ZhuJ., & ZhouM. (2015). How does a servant leader fuel the service fire? A multilevel model of servant leadership, individual self identity, group competition climate, and customer service performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 511–521. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038036
5.
ChristianM. S., GarzaA. S., & SlaughterJ. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64, 89–136. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744–6570.2010.01203.x
6.
CohenJ., (1988). Statistical power and analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
EhrhartM. G. (2004). Leadership and procedural justice climate as antecedents of unit–level organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 57, 61–94. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744–6570.2004.tb02484.x
8.
FieldA. P. (2001). Meta–analysis of correlation coefficients: A Monte Carlo comparison of fixed– and random–effects methods. Psychological Methods, 6, 161–180. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/1082–989x.6.2.161
9.
*HuJ., & LidenR. C. (2011). Antecedents of team potency and team effectiveness: An examination of goal and process clarity and servant leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 851–862. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022465
10.
*HunterE. M., NeubertM. J., PerryS. J., WittL. A., PenneyL. M., & WeinbergerE. (2013). Servant leaders inspire servant followers: Antecedents and outcomes for employees and the organization. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 316–331. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.12.001
JooB., ZigarmiD., NimonK., & ShuckB. (2017). Work environment cognition and psychological well–being: The role of cognitive engagement as a partial mediator. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53, 446–469. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316688780
13.
LeeC. I. S. G., BoscoF. A., SteelP., & UggerslevK. L. (2017). A metaBUS–enabled meta–analysis of career satisfaction. Career Development International, 22, 565–582. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi–08–2017–0137
14.
*LidenR. C., WayneS. J., ZhaoH., & HendersonD. (2008). Servant leadership: Development of a multidimensional measure and multi–level assessment. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 161–177. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.01.006
15.
*MayerD. M., BardesM., & PiccoloR. F. (2008). Do servant–leaders help satisfy follower needs? An organizational justice perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 180–197. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701743558
metaBUS (2018). About metaBUS. Retrieved from http://metabus.org/National Information Standards Organization (US) (2005). Guidelines for the construction, format, and management of monolingual controlled vocabularies. Bethesda, MD: NISO Press.
18.
NimonK. (2014). Secondary data analysis from published descriptive statistics: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 17, 26–39. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422314559805
19.
NimonK. (2017). HRDQ submissions of quantitative research reports: Three common comments in decision letters and a checklist. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 28, 281–298. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21289
20.
NimonK., ShuckB., & ZigarmiD. (2016). A meta–analytic investigation into the third order commonality between employee engagement and job attitudes. Paper presented at the 17th International Conference on Human Resource Development Research and Practice Across Europe, Manchester, England.
21.
NimonK., ZientekL. R., & HensonR. (2012). The assumption of a reliable instrument and other pitfalls to avoid when considering the reliability of data.Frontiers in Psychology, 3(102),1–13. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00102
22.
*PetersonS. J., GalvinB. M., & LangeD. (2012). CEO servant leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 565–596. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744–6570.2012.01253.x
23.
*RedekerM., de VriesR. E., RouckhoutD., VermerenP., & de FruytF. (2012). Integrating leadership: The leadership circumplex. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23, 435–455. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2012.738671
24.
Russ–EftD. (2008). SSCI, ISI, JCR, JIF, IF, and journal quality. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19, 185–189. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1235
25.
RyffC. D., & KeyesC. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well–being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727.
*SendjayaS., & CooperB. (2011). Servant Leadership Behaviour Scale: A hierarchical model and test of construct validity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 416–436. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13594321003590549
28.
ShuckB., GhoshR., ZigarmiD. and NimonK. (2013). The jingle jangle of employee engagement: Further exploration of the emerging construct and implications for workplace learning and performance. Human Resource Development Review, 12, 11–35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312463921
29.
SteelP., TarasV., UggerslevK., & BoscoF. (2017). The happy culture: A theoretical, meta–analytic, and empirical review of the relationship between culture and wealth and subjective well–being. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 108886831772137. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317721372
30.
TorracoR. J. (2004). Challenges and choices for theoretical research in human resource development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 171–188. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1097
31.
TorracoR. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4, 356–368. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305278283
32.
Vacha–HaaseT., HensonR. K., & CarusoJ. C. (2002). Reliability generalization: Moving toward improved understanding and use of score reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 562–569.
33.
*Van DierendonckD., & NuijtenI. (2010). The servant leadership survey: Development and validation of a multidimensional measure. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 249–267. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869–010–9194–1
34.
*Van KnippenbergB., & van KnippenbergD. (2005). Leader self–sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role of leader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 25–37. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021–9010.90.1.25
35.
*ZhangH., Kwong KwanH., EverettA. M., & JianZ. (2012). Servant leadership, organizational identification, and work–to–family enrichment: The moderating role of work climate for sharing family concerns. Human Resource Management, 51, 747–767. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21498
36.
*References marked with an asterisk indicate articles that were used for checking the reliability of a published instrument.
