Guidance on conducting and reviewing systematic reviews (and meta-analyses) in work and organizational psychology

References

• Adams, R. J., Smart, P., & Huff, A. S. (2017). Shades of grey: Guidelines for working with the grey literature in systematic reviews for management and organizational studies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19, 432–454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartlett, D., & Francis-Smythe, J. (2016). Bridging the divide in work and organizational psychology: Evidence from practice. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25, 615–630.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boer, D., Deinert, A., Homan, A. C., & Voelpel, S. C. (2016). Revisiting the mediating role of leader–Member exchange in transformational leadership: The differential impact model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25, 883–899.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouckenooghe, D. M., Schwarz, G., & Minbashian, A. (2015). Herscovitch and Meyer’s three-component model of commitment to change: Meta-analytic findings. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 578–595.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bozer, G., & Jones, R. J. (2018). Understanding the factors that determine workplace coaching effectiveness: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27, 342–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter, A. J. (2018). Commentary on neoliberal ideology in work and organizational psychology. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27, 552–553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Combs, J., Liu, Y., Hall, A., & Ketchen, D. (2006). How much do high‐performance work practices matter? A meta‐analysis of their effects on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 59, 501–528.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). (2014). CASP checklists (qualitative checklist). Oxford: CASP.
   Google Scholar
• Daniels, K. (2016). An editorial in four parts. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25, 329–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniels, K. (2017). Thanks, congratulations and publishing useful research. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 629–633.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Early Intervention Foundation. (2015). Translating the evidence. A brief guide to the early intervention foundation’s procedures for identifying, assessing, and disseminating information about early intervention programmes and their evidence. London: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Field, A., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63, 665–694.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, S., Higgins, J. P., Alderson, P., Clarke, M., Mulrow, C. D., & Oxman, A. D. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0: Updated March 2011. London: The Cochrane Collaboration.
   Google Scholar
• Grote, G. (2017). There is hope for better science. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 1–3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grote, G., & Cortina, J. M. (2018). Necessity (not just novelty) is the mother of invention: Using creativity research to improve research in work and organizational psychology. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27, 335–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., … Schünemann, H.J. (2011). GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64, 383–394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harari, M. B., Reaves, A. C., & Viswesvaran, C. (2016). Creative and innovative performance: A meta-analysis of relationships with task, citizenship, and counterproductive job performance dimensions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25, 495–511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., & Sterne, A. C. (2011). Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In J. P. T. Higgins & S. Green Eds., Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration www.handbook.cochrane.org
   Google Scholar
• Hodgkinson, G. P., & Ford, J. K. (2014). Narrative, meta‐analytic, and systematic reviews: What are the differences and why do they matter? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, S1–S5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph, B., Walker, A., & Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of employee assistance programmes: A systematic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27, 1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kröll, C., Doebler, P., & Nüesch, S. (2017). Meta-analytic evidence of the effectiveness of stress management at work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 677–693.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lalloo, D., Demou, E., Smedley, J., Madan, I., Asanati, K., & Macdonald, E. B. (2018). Current research priorities for UK occupational physicians and occupational health researchers: A modified Delphi study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 75, 830–836.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewin, S., Glenton, C., Munthe-Kaas, H., Carlsen, B., Colvin, C. J., Gülmezoglu, M., …; Rashidian A (2015). Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: An approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Medicine, 12. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001895
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, S, & Clarke, M. (2001). Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 322(7300), 1479.
   Google Scholar
• Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., … Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.100010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lomas, T., Medina, J. C., Ivtzan, I., Rupprecht, S., Hart, R., & Eiroa-Orosa, F. J. (2017). The impact of mindfulness on well-being and performance in the workplace: An inclusive systematic review of the empirical literature. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26, 492–513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maynard, M. T., Kennedy, D. M., & Sommer, S. A. (2015). Team adaptation: A fifteen-year synthesis (1998–2013) and framework for how this literature needs to “adapt” going forward. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 652–677.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monteiro, S., Marques Pinto, A., & Roberto, M. S. (2016). Job demands, coping, and impacts of occupational stress among journalists: A systematic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25, 751–772.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ogbonnaya, C., & Daniels, K. (2017). What is a good job? Analysis of the British 2012 skills and employment survey. London: What Works Centre for Wellbeing.
   Google Scholar
• Ogilvie, D., Fayter, D., Petticrew, M., Sowden, A., Thomas, S., Whitehead, M., & Worthy, G. (2008). The harvest plot: A method for synthesising evidence about the differential effects of interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posthuma, R. A., Campion, M. C., & Campion, M. A. (2018). A taxonomic foundation for evidence-based research on employee performance management. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27, 168–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potočnik, K., & Anderson, N. (2016). A constructively critical review of change and innovation-related concepts: Towards conceptual and operational clarity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25, 481–494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puttick, R., & Ludlow, J. (2012). Standards of evidence for impact investing. London: Nesta.
   Google Scholar
• Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & O’Boyle, E. H. (2018). When the “best available evidence” doesn’t win: How doubts about science and scientists threaten the future of evidence-based management. Journal of Management, 44, 2995–3010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samsudin, E. Z., Isahak, M., & Rampal, S. (2018). The prevalence, risk factors and outcomes of workplace bullying among junior doctors: A systematic review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2018.1502171
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., … Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. British Medical Journal, 349, g7647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shepherd, J. P. (2014). How to achieve more effective services: The evidence ecosystem. Cardiff: Cardiff University.
   Google Scholar
• Snape, D., Meads, C., Bagnall, A.-M., Tregaskis, O., & Mansfield, L. (2017). What works wellbeing: A guide to our evidence review methods. London: What Works Centre for Wellbeing.
   Google Scholar
• Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived control by employees: A meta-analysis of studies concerning autonomy and participation at work. Human Relations, 39, 1005–1016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, D., Tregaskis, O., Gedikli, C., Vaughn, O., & Semkina, A. (2018). Well-being through learning: A systematic review of learning interventions in the workplace and their impact on well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27, 247–268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woznyj, H. M., Grenier, K., Ross, R., Banks, G. C., & Rogelberg, S. G. (2018). Results-blind review: A masked crusader for science. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27, 561–576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar