Meta-Analysis: A Comparison of Approaches

By Ralf Schulze. 2004

117 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c67a822e0fb06f5660ceddb8fe24b7005c3eee95

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 Review and Evaluation of Meta-Analysis Practices in Management Research (2009, background): “Conversely, the random-effects model is the more realistic and therefore the better choice, but estimates of random effects can become unstable when the number of studies meta-analysed is small (Schulze, 2004).”
The Use (and Abuse) of Meta-Analysis in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: An Assessment (2009, unknown): “While 27 A possible “quality” indicator is publication status of each primary study, included in several studies as an explanatory variable (e.g., Van Houtven et al. 2007; van Kooten et al. 2004, 2007).”
Meta-analytic Reviews in the Organizational Sciences: Two Meta-analytic Schools on the Way to MARS (the Meta-analytic Reporting Standards) (2013, background): “Such a finding is due to the r to z transformation, which stretches the upper tail of the distribution, resulting in an overestimate of the mean and variance of r when converted back into its original metric (see Schulze 2004).”
The relationship between materialistic values and environmental attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis (2013, unknown): “We employed an integral z -to-r transformation for converting our results back to the r metric (Hafdahl, 2009, 2010; Hafdahl & Williams, 2009; see also Schulze, 2004).”
A basic introduction to fixed‐effect and random‐effects models for meta‐analysis (2010, methodology): “A comparison of the Schmidt–Hunter approach and the inverse-variance approach is provided in Schulze [20] and Borenstein et al.”
Current Methods for Meta-Analysis (2007, methodology): “Instead, the results from the most comprehensive comparison of approaches to date (Schulze, 2004) will be summarized.”
Interactions between climate and habitat loss effects on biodiversity: a systematic review and meta‐analysis (2012, methodology): “Meta-analysis is a quantitative method for synthesizing existing data from multiple studies to test specific hypotheses (Schulze, 2004).”