Practical Meta-Analysis

By Mark Lipsey, David B. Wilson. 2000

7,939 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dd40c0be2e728ed9710deafe8fb45c9e5ae74804

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

Problems With Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST): What Do the Textbooks Say? (2002, background): “One might argue that phi is not the best measure of effect size here because when the split on one dichotomous variable is extreme compared with the other dichotomous variable, the size of phi is constricted (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).”
Voice, creativity, and big five personality traits: A meta-analysis (2018, background): “The results of this meta-analysis show that Conscientiousness, Openness, and Extraversion are good predictors of voice and creativity, with medium effect sizes for voice and medium to high effect sizes for creativity (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).”
Contingency management for treatment of substance use disorders: a meta-analysis. (2006, methodology): “We followed standard practice in weighting each effect size by the inverse of its variance (see formulae in Lipsey & Wilson [50]).”
A Systematic Review of Research on Personalized Learning: Personalized by Whom, to What, How, and for What Purpose(s)? (2021, background): “However, this early-stage design research fell short of the criteria for evidence necessary to inform research syntheses (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).”
The Association Between Coparenting and Child Adjustment: A Meta-Analysis (2010, methodology): “For this purpose, we used macros developed by Lipsey and Wilson (2001) in combination with SPSS 17.0.”
A basic introduction to fixed‐effect and random‐effects models for meta‐analysis (2010, methodology): “Again, we can apply either a fixed-effect or a random-effects variant of this approach, depending on whether or not we assume that all studies with the same covariate values will have the same true effect [11, 12].”
A meta‐analysis of psychopathy‐, antisocial PD‐ and FFM associations (2009, methodology): “Finally, in the third step, the resulting database is analysed using adaptations of conventional statistical techniques, like regression or ANOVA, in order to search for moderators (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).”
Parenting stress among caregivers of children with chronic illness: a systematic review. (2013, methodology): “The random effects model was used as this method takes into account subject-and study-level sampling error (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).”