A basic introduction to fixed‐effect and random‐effects models for meta‐analysis
By M. Borenstein, L. Hedges, Julian P. T. Higgins, H. Rothstein. Research Synthesis Methods, 2010
6,200 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Statistics and Probability
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c88e8ff3f4cff6790a996576cc0c629332ff251a
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Economics and Econometrics
- Mike W.-L. Cheung
- Elizabeth Tipton
- J. Polanin
- E. Tanner‐Smith
- Haitao Chu
- Lifeng Lin
- Guillermo Marcillo
- Judith Meyer
In Statistics and Probability
- J. Polanin
- Mike W.-L. Cheung
- E. Tanner‐Smith
- Haitao Chu
- Lifeng Lin
- Gerta Rücker
- Elizabeth Tipton
- Georgia Salanti
Citations in the corpus
- The effects of technology use in postsecondary education: A meta-analysis of classroom applications (2014, background): “For a full explanation of this, see Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, and Rothstein (2010).”
- Can Early Childhood Curriculum Enhance Social-Emotional Competence in Low-Income Children? A Meta-Analysis of the Educational Effects (2018, background): “However, as the estimate of between-study variance is typically poor when the number of studies is small (N < 10), it is better to base mean differences on the fixed-effects model (Borenstein et al., 2010).”
- The relationship between working alliance and client outcomes in coaching: A meta-analysis (2020, background): “The random effects model allows the true effect size to differ from study to study (Borenstein et al., 2010), which seems to be justified because of the variability in coaching processes.”