{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026392961876832845, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.168674698795181, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evidence-Based I–O Psychology: Not There Yet but Now a Little Nearer?

Our focal article sought to promote discussion of evidence-based approaches to practice in industrial–organizational (I–O) psychology. It did so by describing the meanings and origins of evidence-based practice, evaluating the extent to which I–O psychology practice is currently evidence-based, and considering the role of systematic reviews in promoting evidence-based practice. The commentaries on our focal article raised many interesting and important points. In our response, we divide them into two broad categories. The first category consists of comments and objections that arise from what we believe to be misinterpretations of evidence-based practice and our focal article. The second category contains those comments that in various ways extend and elaborate the issues raised in our focal article. Although we are not there yet, we hope that these commentaries will take us a little nearer to an evidence-based approach to I–O psychology.