Cumulative Meta-Analysis: A Consideration of Indicators of Sufficiency and Stability

By Brian Mullen, P. Muellerleile, B. Bryant. 2001

196 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Psychology, History and Philosophy of Science, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f7a655d39bbe4e5f9a2bee6d7071e72b3ea06657

How researchers see this paper

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

In General Psychology

In History and Philosophy of Science

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

PUBLICATION BIAS: A CASE STUDY OF FOUR TEST VENDORS (2006, unknown): “Mullen, Muellerleile, and Bryant (2001) proposed Rosenthal’s guideline as a formal rule, and several recent psychology meta-analyses (Del Vecchio & O’Leary, 2004; Ma & Kishor, 1997; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) used this formula to assess the results of their file-drawer analyses.”
Publication bias as a threat to the validity of meta-analytic results (2008, methodology): “Mullen et al. (2001) proposed Rosenthal’s guideline as a formal rule, and the authors of several recent psychology meta-analyses (Del Vecchio and O’Leary 2004; Rhoades and Eisenberger 2002) have used this formula to assess the results of their file drawer analyses.”
A comprehensive meta-analysis of the relationship between Emotional Intelligence and health (2010, methodology): “Sufficiency has been obtained if the fail-safe ratio exceeds Rosenthal’s threshold at 1.000, i.e., when the fail-safe number consistently exceeds the 5k + 10 benchmark, indicating that there is no need for additional research to establish the phenomenon (Mullen et al., 2001).”
Individual Differences in Risky Decision Making: A Meta‐analysis of Sensation Seeking and Impulsivity with the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (2014, unknown): “More importantly, the fail-safe ratio was greater than 1.00 in both cases (i.e., 2.28 and 1.12), thereby showing that the “weight of evidence”—reported in this review—“does appear sufficiently tolerant for future results” (Mullen et al., 2001 p.1454).”
Web Surveys versus other Survey Modes: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Response Rates (2008, background): “Such questions may be addressed in cumulative meta-analyses, defined as the procedure of performing new meta-analyses at one or more future time points (see, for example, Mullen et al .”