01592nas a2200157   4500008004100000245010600041210006900147260000900216520100300225653001501228100001801243700001601261700001701277700001901294856012101313       2016                        eng d00aAn Assessment of the Magnitude of Effect Sizes: Evidence from 30 Years of Meta-Analysis in Management0 aAssessment of the Magnitude of Effect Sizes Evidence from 30 Yea  c20163 aThis study compiles information from more than 250 meta-analyses conducted over the past 30 years to assess the magnitude of reported effect sizes in the OB/HR literatures. Our analysis revealed an average uncorrected effect of r = .227 and an average corrected effect of ρ = .278 (SDρ = .140). Based upon the distribution of effect sizes we report, Cohen’s effect size benchmarks are not appropriate for use in OB/HR research as they over-estimate the actual breakpoints between small, medium, and large effects. We also assessed the average statistical power reported in meta-analytic conclusions and found substantial evidence that the majority of primary studies in the management literature are statistically underpowered. Finally, we investigated the impact of the file drawer problem in meta-analyses and our findings indicate that the file drawer problem is not a significant concern for meta-analysts. We conclude by discussing various implications of this study for OB/HR researchers.10aManagement1 aPaterson, Ted1 aHarms, P, D1 aSteel, Piers1 aCredé, Marcus  u/biblio/assessment-magnitude-effect-sizes-evidence-30-years-meta-analysis-management00565nas a2200133   4500008004100000245009300041210006900134260002700203653001500230100001800245700001700263700002700280856012400307       2015                        eng d00aIs Homogeneity a Meta-analytic Myth? Examining Bessel’s Variance Estimation Correction0 aHomogeneity a Metaanalytic Myth Examining Bessel s Variance Esti  aPhiladelphia, PAc201510aManagement1 aPaterson, Ted1 aSteel, Piers1 aKammeyer-Mueller, John  u/biblio/homogeneity-meta-analytic-myth-examining-bessels-variance-estimation-correction