Who, and How, Do We Represent? Fifteen Years of Occupational Health Psychology Research Reviewed

Psychological research has been criticized for its lack of methodological transparency and representativeness. However, the interrelated nature of reporting and representation issues, and their manifestation in occupational health research specifically, remains undocumented. In this review, we coded sample characteristic- and reporting-related information from all occupational health-relevant studies published between 2010 and 2025 in four leading occupational health journals: the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Occupational Health Science, Stress & Health, and Work & Stress. We sought to answer two research questions: 1) how representative are samples of global and/or national population characteristics; and 2) how well do researchers adhere to the American Psychological Association’s (APA) reporting standards when writing about these samples and their research therewith? Informed by 28 sample- and sampling-relevant APA Journal Article Reporting Standards for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies, we coded information from included articles (Nmanuscripts = 1,296; Nstudies = 1,607; Nparticipants = 1,630,146) regarding whether certain sample or study attributes (e.g., demographics, contextual setting) and methodological or analytical decisions (e.g., sampling, missing data procedures) were reported, as well as what was reported and in what format. Results empirically document many forms of underreporting (e.g., participant race, socioeconomic status), underrepresentation (e.g., gender minorities, non-Western nations), and overrepresentation or selection bias (i.e., the “privileged worker effect”), as well as areas for standardization, modernization, and clarification to improve occupational health science and its applications. Recommendations for researchers and editors/reviewers, as well as considerations for theory, research, training, measurement, practice, and policy, are presented.