Borchgrevink presented flawed arguments against our (Lynn & Mullen) previous recommendation that hospitality researchers employ meta-analytic techniques other than those of Hunter and Schmidt. The problems with his criticisms are briefly discussed in this article.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BorchgrevinkC. P.(1998).Taking issue with Lynn and Mullen's meta-analytic recommendations.Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,22(1), 98–101
2.
ErezA.BloomM. C.WellsM. T.(1996).Using random rather than fixed effects models in meta-analysis: Implications for situational specificity and validity generalization.Personnel Psychology,49, 275–306
3.
HaganR. L.(1997).In praise of the null hypothesis statistical test.American Psychologist,52, 15–24
4.
HedgesL. V.(1994a).Fixed effects models. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (pp. 285–300). New York: Russell Sage
5.
HedgesL. V.(1994b).Statistical considerations. In CooperH.HedgesL. V. (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (pp. 29–38). New York: Russell Sage
6.
HedgesL. V.OlkinI.(1985).Statistical methods for meta-analysis.Orlando, FL: Academic Press
7.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L.(1990).Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings.Newbury Park, CA: Sage
8.
JohnsonB. T.MullenB.SalasE.(1995).Comparison of three meta-analytic approaches.Journal of Applied Psychology,80, 94–106
9.
LynnM.MullenB.(1997).The quantitative integration of research: An introduction to meta-analysis.Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research,21, 121–139
10.
National Research Council.(1992).Combining information: Statistical issues and opportunities for research.Washington, DC: National Academy Press
11.
RosenthalR.(1991).Meta-analytic procedures for social research.Newbury Park, CA: Sage
12.
SchmidtF. L.HunterJ. E.(1997).Comparison of three meta-analysis methods revisited: An error in Johnson, Mullen and Salas (1995). Unpublished manuscript, College of Business, University of Iowa
