A meta‐analysis of the effects on worker productivity of 11 types of psychologically based organizational interventions showed that such programs, on average, raised worker productivity by nearly one‐half standard deviation. The strength of effects was found to vary by type of intervention, criterion of productivity, contextual factors in organizations, and features of research design. Also discussed in the paper are comparisons of conclusions reached through meta‐analysis versus traditional methods of literature review.

No abstract

This article reviews the development of industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology in the United States since its beginnings at about the turn of the century. The history is divided into periods, within which are described topics, roles, and forces, with the goal of explaining as well as describing developments. Among the conclusions are that I-O psychology is a dynamic field that has been making contributions both to the science of behavior and to industrial society and that those contributions have been underestimated by some and possibly overestimated by others. Among the problems still facing the field is the disjunction between science and practice. However, in principle, that and other bipolarities can be made complementary.

Analyzed 31 investigations of test validity in samples of Black and White workers to test null hypotheses that differences in validity between the 2 ethnic groups do not occur more often than chance expectation. The analyses differed from others recently addressing the same issue by dealing both with single-group validity and differential validity, by including additional data, and by making certain methodological changes. Because of low power and other deficiencies, the accumulated studies cannot furnish an unequivocal test of the issue. On the whole, however, their implications do not disconfirm the null hypothesis regarding chance differences in single-group validity, whereas they do appear to reject it with respect to differential validity. Nevertheless, tests do not consistently work better in one ethnic population than the other, even though they may function differently in one than the other. Ethnic differences in test validity are not a "pseudoproblem." (23 ref)

THERE HAS BEEN much recent research and discussion of worker responses to job en1argement.l Countering claims of universal applicability, the general conclusion of three widely cited studies is that rural workers respond favorably to job enlargement, while the opposite is true for urban workers.2 Rural workers, it is felt, express satisfaction with jobs which allow individual responsibility and discretion because the communities in which they live value such traditional work virtues as autonomy and independence. By contrast, urban workers, it is argued, respond less favorably to enlarged jobs because urban communities are not sufficiently integrated to support and enforce traditional work values; instead, nonwork related values and activities compete for the worker's allegiance. This latter response is considered most likely in anomic communities characterized by high population density, slums, low standards of living, and chronic ~nemployment.~ While the iduence of individual and cultural variables on worker responses to job enlargement is not denied, the findings of the present study suggest that the evidence for differential responses between rural and urban workers is inconclusive. Previous studies which have found urban-rural differences in responses to various job attributes have either used atypical worker populations or have drawn implications for job enlargement which are unwarranted by the data. Utilizing data which avoid a number of the problems associated with past studies, this research examines the responses of workers * Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior, Pennsylvania State University. 1This research was supported by funds from a National Science Foundation grant to the Pennsylvania State University. The author wishes to express his appreciation to E. Lauck Parke and John E. Sheridan for their contributions to the job ratings and data analysis. 1 7 Blamer, op. cit, and M . Meissner, Technology and the Worker (San Francisco: Chandler,