Relationships Between Shared Group Properties: Theory, Measurement, Estimation, and Adjustment

ABSTRACT Teams researchers, meta‐analysts, and others often study relationships between group‐level constructs measured by aggregating individual‐level variables, but it is well‐known that group‐mean correlations are influenced by individual‐level relationships. We review multilevel issues and current practices in estimating and adjusting group‐mean associations. We give special attention to comparisons across levels of analysis, and to adjustments for estimating population parameters. A Monte Carlo simulation study indicates that the two most commonly used adjustments in meta‐analysis are ineffective in estimating population‐based effect sizes. They frequently overestimate true relationships, sometimes severely. Indeed, simulations show that common adjustments move estimates away from population values in many situations. We suggest an alternative approach to adjustment that produces more accurate and conservative estimates. We apply our approach to examples in the literature and call into question estimates and interpretations in a large body of meta‐analyses based on aggregated group‐mean variables.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Personnel Psychology
Published
2026-02-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.70022
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Relationships Between Shared Group Properties: Theory, Measurement, Estimation, and Adjustment

Nichelle C. Carpenter, Mark A. Maltarich, Paul D. Bliese
Personnel Psychology
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
article

Relationships Between Shared Group Properties: Theory, Measurement, Estimation, and Adjustment

Nichelle C. Carpenter, Mark A. Maltarich, Paul D. Bliese
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Teams researchers, meta‐analysts, and others often study relationships between group‐level constructs measured by aggregating individual‐level variables, but it is well‐known that group‐mean correlations are influenced by individual‐level relationships. We review multilevel issues and current practices in estimating and adjusting group‐mean associations. We give special attention to comparisons across levels of analysis, and to adjustments for estimating population parameters. A Monte Carlo simulation study indicates that the two most commonly used adjustments in meta‐analysis are ineffective in estimating population‐based effect sizes. They frequently overestimate true relationships, sometimes severely. Indeed, simulations show that common adjustments move estimates away from population values in many situations. We suggest an alternative approach to adjustment that produces more accurate and conservative estimates. We apply our approach to examples in the literature and call into question estimates and interpretations in a large body of meta‐analyses based on aggregated group‐mean variables.

Personnel Psychology
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US), University of South Carolina (US)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 64%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.