The Success of Linear Bootstrapping Models: Decision Domain-, Expertise-, and Criterion-Specific Meta-Analysis.
The success of bootstrapping or replacing a human judge with a model (e.g., an equation) has been demonstrated in Paul Meehl's (1954) seminal work and bolstered by the results of several meta-analyses. To date, however, analyses considering different types of meta-analyses as well as the potential dependence of bootstrapping success on the decision domain, the level of expertise of the human judge, and the criterion for what constitutes an accurate decision have been missing from the literature. In this study, we addressed these research gaps by conducting a meta-analysis of lens model studies. We compared the results of a traditional (bare-bones) meta-analysis with findings of a meta-analysis of the success of bootstrap models corrected for various methodological artifacts. In line with previous studies, we found that bootstrapping was more successful than human judgment. Furthermore, bootstrapping was more successful in studies with an objective decision criterion than in studies with subjective or test score criteria. We did not find clear evidence that the success of bootstrapping depended on the decision domain (e.g., education or medicine) or on the judge's level of expertise (novice or expert). Correction of methodological artifacts increased the estimated success of bootstrapping, suggesting that previous analyses without artifact correction (i.e., traditional meta-analyses) may have underestimated the value of bootstrapping models.
Institute of Education, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Esther
E
Kaufmann
Otto-Selz Institute for Applied Psychology, University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Werner W
WW
Wittmann
D016477:Artifacts; D019992:Databases as Topic; D003657:Decision Making; D016014:Linear Models; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D011594:Psychometrics