 Show
AbstractThis paper examines how threats to the validity of meta-analysis have been dealt with by clinical researchers employing this approach to literature review. Three validity threats were identified — mixing of dissimilar studies, publication bias, and inclusion of poor quality studies. Approaches to addressing these threats were evaluated for their effectiveness and popularity by surveying 32 published meta-analyses in clinical psychology. Distrust of meta-analysis, however, was found to transcend these validity threats. Other explanations for why this popular research strategy continues to receive widespread criticism were considered. Suggestions were made for how meta-analysis might better address these concerns.
References (143)
A consolidation and appraisal of science meta-analysesJournal of Research in Science Teaching(1983) Review of developments in meta-analytic methodPsychological Bulletin(1986) An empirical comparison of meta-analytic and traditional reviewsPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin(1991) Publication biasThe evaluation of therapeutic outcomesA systematic approach to conducting a non-statistical meta-analysis of research literatureAcademic Medicine(1995) Relative contributions of specific and nonspecific treatment effects: Meta-analysis of placebo-controlled behavior therapy researchPsychological Bulletin(1988) Behavior therapy versus placebo: Commentary on Bowers and Clum's meta-analysisPsychological Bulletin(1990) Predicting metabolic control in diabetes: A pilot study using meta-analysis to estimate a linear modelNursing Research(1994) Vote-counting proceduresThe usefulness of the “fail-safe” statistic in meta-analysisEducational and Psychological Measurement(1990) Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. II: Replicate variability and comparison of studies that agree and disagreeStatistics in Medicine(1987) Meta-analysis of pragmatic and theoretical research: A critiqueJournal of Psychology(1987) Behavior therapy better than placebo treatment: Fact or artifact?Psychological Bulletin(1990) The earth is round (p<.05)American Psychologist(1994) Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversiesJournal of the American Medical Association(1993) Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings(1979) Reviewing the literature: A comparison of traditional methods with meta-analysisJournal of Personality(1980) Race comparisons on need for achievement: A meta-analytic alternative to Graham's narrative reviewReview of Educational Research(1995) On the role of meta-analysis in personality and social psychologyPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin(1991) An assessment from the policy perspectiveMisuse of statistical tests in three decades of psychotherapy researchJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology(1994) An approach for assessing publication bias prior to performing a meta-analysisStatistical Science(1992) On cohesiveness: Reply to Keyton and other critics of the constructSmall Group Research(1992) Using research syntheses to plan future researchThe number-crunchers drugmakers fear and loveBusiness Week(1994) The effects of psychotherapy: An evaluationJournal of Consulting Psychology(1952) An exercise in mega-sillinessAmerican Psychologist(1978) Meta-analysis: An abuse of research integrationJournal of Special Education(1984) Meta-analysis squared-Does it make sense?American Psychologist(1995) Is EPA blowing its own smoke? How much science is behind its tobacco finding?Investor's Business Daily(1993) Meta-analysis and psychotherapy: Introduction to special sectionJournal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
(1983) Quality of study rating form: An instrument for synthesizing evaluation studiesJournal of Social Work Education(1989) Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of researchEducational Research(1976) In defense of generalization
Behavioral and Brain Sciences(1978) The next-to-last word on meta-analysisContemporary Psychology(1995) Meta-analysis in social research(1981) Meta-analysis of problem-solving studies: A critical response
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education(1992) Cited by (225)Recommended articles (6)Copyright © 1997 Published by Elsevier Ltd. What is a problem with metaSeveral problems arise in meta-analysis: regressions are often non-linear; effects are often multivariate rather than univariate; coverage can be restricted; bad studies may be included; the data summarised may not be homogeneous; grouping different causal factors may lead to meaningless estimates of effects; and the ...
When should you avoid metaMeta-analyses of studies that are at risk of bias may be seriously misleading. If bias is present in each (or some) of the individual studies, meta-analysis will simply compound the errors, and produce a 'wrong' result that may be interpreted as having more credibility.
What is the main weakness of a metaTwo main criticisms of meta-analysis are that it combines different types of studies (“mixing apples and oranges”) [8], and that the summary effect may ignore important differences between studies.
Which of the following is a common criticism of metaA common criticism of meta-analysis is that the analysis focuses on the summary effect, and ignores the fact that the treatment effect may vary from study to study.
|
Meta-analyses should avoid the apples and oranges problem. what does this mean?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 paraquee Inc.
