An Introduction to Metaanalysis

By Feng Li. 2005

1,390 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/26f4c387ef443310dbfd80dd63230082f88b5620

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

A Meta-Analysis Investigating the Association Between Metacognition and Math Performance in Adolescence (2021, methodology): “Main analysis Pearson’s r coefficients reported by primary studies were converted into Fisher’s Z (Borenstein et al. 2009).”
Why do people play games? A meta-analysis (2017, methodology): “The difference between the two correlation estimates is examined by way of Q-test, which tests the homogeneity and significance of variance between groups (Borenstein et al. 2009).”
The Testing Effect in the Psychology Classroom: A Meta-Analytic Perspective (2017, methodology): “Normally, the standard deviation of difference scores is recommended to replace the pooled standard deviation component for data coming from within-subjects’ designs (Borenstein et al., 2009, pp. 28–30).”
Leadership behaviour and leader self-reported well-being: A review, integration and meta-analytic examination (2020, methodology): “To test for publication bias, we visually inspected the funnel plots for asymmetry (e.g. Borenstein et al., 2009) and calculated funnel plot asymmetry tests to assess potential asymmetry in the effect sizes and standard errors (Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997; Viechtbauer, 2010).”
Publication Bias in Strategic Management Research (2017, methodology): “All three publication bias tests use the meta-analytic technique that is derived from the Hedges and colleagues (Borenstein et al., 2009; Hedges & Olkin, 1985) tradition of meta-analysis.”
Writing Characteristics of Students With Learning Disabilities and Typically Achieving Peers (2017, methodology): “We calculated average weighted ES, confidence intervals, and statistical significance, and we also calculated for two measures of homogeneity (Q and I2; Borenstein et al., 2009).”
Revisiting the file drawer problem in meta‐analysis: An assessment of published and nonpublished correlation matrices. (2012, background): “…meta-analytic literature reflects an enduring and ubiquitous concern regarding the universality and consequences of the file drawer phenomenon on the synthesis of research (Borenstein et al., 2009; Howard et al., 2009; McDaniel, Rothstein, & Whetzel, 2006; Rothstein et al., 2005; Sutton, 2009).”
The Effects of Vocabulary Intervention on Young Children’s Word Learning (2010, methodology): “This mixed-model approach allowed us to partition the variance and examine the large heterogeneity found in our sample (Borenstein et al., 2009; Wood & Eagly, 2009).”
The flipped classroom in second language learning: A meta-analysis (2020, methodology): “In cases where these data were unavailable, test statistics or other effect size metrics were used in tandem with sample size to estimate g (for detailed formulae; see Borenstein et al., 2009).”
A Meta-Analysis of Serious Digital Games for Healthy Lifestyle Promotion (2014, background): “Furthermore, quantifying and comparing heterogeneity across studies by game characteristics permits tests of hypotheses reported in previous reviews (Borenstein et al., 2009).”
Mathematical Interventions for Secondary Students With Learning Disabilities and Mathematics Difficulties: A Meta-Analysis (2018, methodology): “In addition, we Jitendra et al. 183 included levels of each moderator in the moderator analysis only if the sample was adequately powered (five or more effect sizes; Borenstein et al., 2009).”
Near and Far Transfer in Cognitive Training: A Second-Order Meta-Analysis (2019, methodology): “Finally, we also ran an omnibus meta-analysis—that is, a first-order meta-analysis including all the primary studies of all the first-order meta-analyses (Borenstein et al., 2009)—for each of the three models.”
Robust variance estimation in meta‐regression with dependent effect size estimates (2010, unknown): “size) one <- cbind(rep(1,tab$k[1])) J <- one%*%t(one sigma <- (tab$s%*%t(tab$s)) vee <- diag(tab$s^2,tab$k[1]) SigmV <- sigma - vee”
The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Improving L2 Written Accuracy: A Meta‐Analysis (2015, methodology): “This assumption is deemed appropriate, given that the magnitude of the impact of a given treatment can be different from study to study, due to variations in the age of participants, the setting, and so on (Borenstein et al., 2011).”