Selection Method Approaches

79 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Corporate Governance in China: A Meta‐Analysis (2018, methodology): “This method consists of three tests: (1) Duval and Tweedie’s (2000) trim and fill, (2) cumulative meta-analysis (Borenstein et al., 2009), and (3) selection models (Hedges and Vevea, 2005).”
Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis (2016, methodology): “…less for obtaining a single estimate that purports to adjust for publication bias ex post and more for sensitivity analysis—that is, exploring the range of estimates that result from assuming different forms of and severity of publication bias (see Vevea & Woods, 2005, and Hedges & Vevea, 2005).”
Estimating the Difference Between Published and Unpublished Effect Sizes (2016, background): “One promising option is the use of selection models that account for outcomereporting bias and adjust parameters accordingly (Hedges & Vevea, 2005).”
p-Curve and Effect Size (2014, unknown): “4), and cannot be applied when all effects are of the same sign (Hedges & Vevea, 2005, p. 152).”
The relationship between materialism and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. (2014, unknown): “Finally, we used selection methods (Hedges & Vevea, 2005; Sutton, 2009; Vevea & Hedges, 1995; Vevea & Woods, 2005), which can incorporate other moderators in the model (which the trim-and-fill method cannot).”