Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T14:03:55.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Percentage of confusion accounted for

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 December 2021

Eric Popp  and
Christopher Coughlin Open the ORCID record for Christopher Coughlin [Opens in a new window]
Eric Popp*
Affiliation:
SHL
Christopher Coughlin
Affiliation:
SHL
*
*Corresponding author. Email: eric.popp@shl.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 2021 , pp. 518 - 520
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Singh, K., Field, J. G., & Pierce, C. A. (2015). Correlational effect size benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038047 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cucina, J., Berger, J., & Busciglio, H. (2017). Communicating criterion-related validity using expectancy charts: Anew approach. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 3(1), Article 1. https://doi:10.25035/pad.2017.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024338 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Latham, G. (2007). A speculative perspective on the transfer of behavioral science findings to the workplace: “The times they are a-changin’.” Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1027–1032. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.27153899 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. R. (2021). In praise of table 1: The importance of making better use of descriptive statistics. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 14(4), 461–477.Google Scholar
Ozer, D. J. (1985). Correlation and the coefficient of determination. Psychological Bulletin, 97(2), 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.97.2.307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, S., König, C. J., & Kleinmann, M. (2010). Single-attribute utility analysis may be futile, but this can’t be the end of the story: Causal chain analysis as an alternative. Personnel Psychology, 63(4), 1041–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01197.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar