Meta-Analysis: Literature Synthesis or Effect-Size Surface Estimation?

1992 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 363-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald B. Rubin
Keyword(s):  
Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Standard Errors ◽  
Statistical Techniques ◽  
Average Effect ◽  
Statistical Tools ◽  
Surface Estimation ◽  
Literature Synthesis ◽  
Relevant Factors

A traditional meta-analysis can be thought of as a literature synthesis, in which a collection of observed studies is analyzed to obtain summary judgments about overall significance and size of effects. Many aspects of the current set of statistical tools for meta-analysis are highly useful—for example, the development of clear and concise effect-size indicators with associated standard errors. I am less happy, however, with more esoteric statistical techniques and their implied objects of estimation (i.e., their estimands) which are tied to the conceptualization of average effect sizes, weighted or otherwise, in a population of studies. In contrast to these average effect sizes of literature synthesis, I believe that the proper estimand is an effect-size surface, which is a function only of scientifically relevant factors, and which can only be estimated by extrapolating a response surface of observed effect sizes to a region of ideal studies. This effect-size surface perspective is presented and contrasted with the literature synthesis perspective. The presentation is entirely conceptual. Moreover, it is designed to be provocative, thereby prodding researchers to rethink traditional meta-analysis and ideally stimulating meta-analysts to attempt effect-surface estimations.

scholarly journals P-uniform*

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robbie Cornelis Maria van Aert ◽  
Marcel A. L. M. van Assen
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Random Effects ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Properties ◽  
Selection Model ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Random Effects Model ◽  
Average Effect ◽  
Model Approach

Publication bias is a major threat to the validity of a meta-analysis resulting in overestimated effect sizes. P-uniform is a meta-analysis method that corrects estimates for publication bias but overestimates average effect size if heterogeneity in true effect sizes (i.e., between-study variance) is present. We propose an extension and improvement of p-uniform called p-uniform*. P-uniform* improves upon p-uniform in three important ways, as it (i) entails a more efficient estimator, (ii) eliminates the overestimation of effect size in case of between-study variance in true effect sizes, and (iii) enables estimating and testing for the presence of the between-study variance. We compared the statistical properties of p-uniform* with p-uniform, the selection model approach of Hedges (1992), and the random-effects model. Statistical properties of p-uniform* and the selection model approach were comparable and generally outperformed p-uniform and the random-effects model if publication bias was present. We demonstrate that p-uniform* and the selection model approach estimate average effect size and between-study variance rather well with ten or more studies in the meta-analysis when publication bias is not extreme. P-uniform* generally provides more accurate estimates of the between-study variance in meta-analyses containing many studies (e.g., 60 or more) and if publication bias is present. However, both methods do not perform well if the meta-analysis only includes statistically significant studies. P-uniform performed best in this case but only when between-study variance was zero or small. We offer recommendations for applied researchers, and provide an R package and an easy-to-use web application for applying p-uniform*.

scholarly journals Effect Sizes, Power, and Biases in Intelligence Research: A Meta-Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele B. Nuijten ◽  
Marcel A. L. M. van Assen ◽  
Hilde Augusteijn ◽  
Elise Anne Victoire Crompvoets ◽  
Jelte M. Wicherts
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
Small Study ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Medium Effect ◽  
Average Effect ◽  
Average Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analyses

In this meta-study, we analyzed 2,442 effect sizes from 131 meta-analyses in intelligence research, published from 1984 to 2014, to estimate the average effect size, median power, and evidence for bias. We found that the average effect size in intelligence research was a Pearson’s correlation of .26, and the median sample size was 60. Furthermore, across primary studies, we found a median power of 11.9% to detect a small effect, 54.5% to detect a medium effect, and 93.9% to detect a large effect. We documented differences in average effect size and median estimated power between different types of in intelligence studies (correlational studies, studies of group differences, experiments, toxicology, and behavior genetics). On average, across all meta-analyses (but not in every meta-analysis), we found evidence for small study effects, potentially indicating publication bias and overestimated effects. We found no differences in small study effects between different study types. We also found no convincing evidence for the decline effect, US effect, or citation bias across meta-analyses. We conclude that intelligence research does show signs of low power and publication bias, but that these problems seem less severe than in many other scientific fields.

scholarly journals Effect Sizes, Power, and Biases in Intelligence Research: A Meta-Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 36
Author(s):  
Michèle B. Nuijten ◽  
Marcel A. L. M. van Assen ◽  
Hilde E. M. Augusteijn ◽  
Elise A. V. Crompvoets ◽  
Jelte M. Wicherts
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
Small Study ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Medium Effect ◽  
Average Effect ◽  
Average Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analyses

In this meta-study, we analyzed 2442 effect sizes from 131 meta-analyses in intelligence research, published from 1984 to 2014, to estimate the average effect size, median power, and evidence for bias. We found that the average effect size in intelligence research was a Pearson’s correlation of 0.26, and the median sample size was 60. Furthermore, across primary studies, we found a median power of 11.9% to detect a small effect, 54.5% to detect a medium effect, and 93.9% to detect a large effect. We documented differences in average effect size and median estimated power between different types of intelligence studies (correlational studies, studies of group differences, experiments, toxicology, and behavior genetics). On average, across all meta-analyses (but not in every meta-analysis), we found evidence for small-study effects, potentially indicating publication bias and overestimated effects. We found no differences in small-study effects between different study types. We also found no convincing evidence for the decline effect, US effect, or citation bias across meta-analyses. We concluded that intelligence research does show signs of low power and publication bias, but that these problems seem less severe than in many other scientific fields.

scholarly journals Cross-linguistic influence in simultaneous and early sequential bilingual children: a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-33
Author(s):  
Chantal VAN DIJK ◽  
Elise VAN WONDEREN ◽  
Elly KOUTAMANIS ◽  
Gerrit Jan KOOTSTRA ◽  
Ton DIJKSTRA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Uniform Method ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Average Effect ◽  
Language Dominance ◽  
Average Effect Size ◽  
Comprehensive Theory ◽  
Bilingual Development

Abstract Although cross-linguistic influence at the level of morphosyntax is one of the most intensively studied topics in child bilingualism, the circumstances under which it occurs remain unclear. In this meta-analysis, we measured the effect size of cross-linguistic influence and systematically assessed its predictors in 750 simultaneous and early sequential bilingual children in 17 unique language combinations across 26 experimental studies. We found a significant small to moderate average effect size of cross-linguistic influence, indicating that cross-linguistic influence is part and parcel of bilingual development. Language dominance, operationalized as societal language, was a significant predictor of cross-linguistic influence, whereas surface overlap, language domain and age were not. Perhaps an even more important finding was that definitions and operationalisations of cross-linguistic influence and its predictors varied considerably between studies. This could explain the absence of a comprehensive theory in the field. To solve this issue, we argue for a more uniform method of studying cross-linguistic influence.

scholarly journals A Statistical Method for Synthesizing Meta-Analyses

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liansheng Larry Tang ◽  
Michael Caudy ◽  
Faye Taxman
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Method ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Weighted Mean ◽  
Summary Effect ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Size Estimates ◽  
Similar Search

Multiple meta-analyses may use similar search criteria and focus on the same topic of interest, but they may yield different or sometimes discordant results. The lack of statistical methods for synthesizing these findings makes it challenging to properly interpret the results from multiple meta-analyses, especially when their results are conflicting. In this paper, we first introduce a method to synthesize the meta-analytic results when multiple meta-analyses use the same type of summary effect estimates. When meta-analyses use different types of effect sizes, the meta-analysis results cannot be directly combined. We propose a two-step frequentist procedure to first convert the effect size estimates to the same metric and then summarize them with a weighted mean estimate. Our proposed method offers several advantages over existing methods by Hemming et al. (2012). First, different types of summary effect sizes are considered. Second, our method provides the same overall effect size as conducting a meta-analysis on all individual studies from multiple meta-analyses. We illustrate the application of the proposed methods in two examples and discuss their implications for the field of meta-analysis.

scholarly journals Changes of Ankle Dorsiflexion Using Compression Tissue Flossing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Devin S. Kielur ◽  
Cameron J. Powden
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Lower Extremity Injury ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Physically Active ◽  
Evidence Database

Context: Impaired dorsiflexion range of motion (DFROM) has been established as a predictor of lower-extremity injury. Compression tissue flossing (CTF) may address tissue restrictions associated with impaired DFROM; however, a consensus is yet to support these effects. Objectives: To summarize the available literature regarding CTF on DFROM in physically active individuals. Evidence Acquisition: PubMed and EBSCOhost (CINAHL, MEDLINE, and SPORTDiscus) were searched from 1965 to July 2019 for related articles using combination terms related to CTF and DRFOM. Articles were included if they measured the immediate effects of CTF on DFROM. Methodological quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. The level of evidence was assessed using the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy. The magnitude of CTF effects from pre-CTF to post-CTF and compared with a control of range of motion activities only were examined using Hedges g effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals. Randomeffects meta-analysis was performed to synthesize DFROM changes. Evidence Synthesis: A total of 6 studies were included in the analysis. The average Physiotherapy Evidence Database score was 60% (range = 30%–80%) with 4 out of 6 studies considered high quality and 2 as low quality. Meta-analysis indicated no DFROM improvements for CTF compared with range of motion activities only (effect size = 0.124; 95% confidence interval, −0.137 to 0.384; P = .352) and moderate improvements from pre-CTF to post-CTF (effect size = 0.455; 95% confidence interval, 0.022 to 0.889; P = .040). Conclusions: There is grade B evidence to suggest CTF may have no effect on DFROM when compared with a control of range of motion activities only and results in moderate improvements from pre-CTF to post-CTF. This suggests that DFROM improvements were most likely due to exercises completed rather than the band application.

Effect Sizes: Conventional Choices and Calculations

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S. Rosenberg ◽  
Hannah R. Rothstein ◽  
Jessica Gurevitch
Keyword(s):  
Critical Point ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Parameter ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Common Effect ◽  
Inference Methods ◽  
Conventional Effect ◽  
Estimate Effect Size

One of the fundamental concepts in meta-analysis is that of the effect size. An effect size is a statistical parameter that can be used to compare, on the same scale, the results of different studies in which a common effect of interest has been measured. This chapter describes the conventional effect sizes most commonly encountered in ecology and evolutionary biology, and the types of data associated with them. While choice of a specific measure of effect size may influence the interpretation of results, it does not influence the actual inference methods of meta-analysis. One critical point to remember is that one cannot combine different measures of effect size in a single meta-analysis: once you have chosen how you are going to estimate effect size, you need to use it for all of the studies to be analyzed.

M. Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 163-165
Author(s):  
Noémie Laurens
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Primary Research ◽  
Unit Of Analysis ◽  
Research Studies

This chapter illustrates meta-analysis, which is a specific type of literature review, and more precisely a type of research synthesis, alongside traditional narrative reviews. Unlike in primary research, the unit of analysis of a meta-analysis is the results of individual studies. And unlike traditional reviews, meta-analysis only applies to: empirical research studies with quantitative findings hat are conceptually comparable and configured in similar statistical forms. What further distinguishes meta-analysis from other research syntheses is the method of synthesizing the results of studies — i.e. the use of statistics and, in particular, of effect sizes. An effect size represents the degree to which the phenomenon under study exists.

scholarly journals A-17 Category Test performance in individuals with alcohol versus methamphetamine dependence

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 876-876
Author(s):  
A Walker ◽  
A Hauson ◽  
S Sarkissians ◽  
A Pollard ◽  
C Flora-Tostado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Effect Size ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Neuropsychological Functioning ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Category Test ◽  
Methamphetamine Dependence ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Axis I

Abstract Objective The Category Test (CT) has consistently been found to be sensitive at detecting the effects of alcohol on the brain. However, this test has not been as widely used in examining the effects of methamphetamine. The current meta-analysis compared effect sizes of studies that have examined performance on the CT in alcohol versus methamphetamine dependent participants. Data selection Three researchers independently searched nine databases (e.g., PsycINFO, Pubmed, ProceedingsFirst), extracted required data, and calculated effect sizes. Inclusion criteria identified studies that had (a) compared alcohol or methamphetamine dependent groups to healthy controls and (b) matched groups on either age, education, or IQ (at least 2 out of 3). Studies were excluded if participants were reported to have Axis I diagnoses (other than alcohol or methamphetamine dependence) or comorbidities known to impact neuropsychological functioning. Sixteen articles were coded and analyzed for the current study. Data synthesis Alcohol studies showed a large effect size (g = 0.745, p < 0.001) while methamphetamine studies evidenced a moderate effect size (g = 0.406, p = 0.001); both without statistically significant heterogeneity (I2 = 0). Subgroup analysis revealed a statistically significant difference between the effect sizes from alcohol versus methamphetamine studies (Q-between = 5.647, p = 0.017). Conclusions The CT is sensitive to the effects of both alcohol and methamphetamine and should be considered when examining dependent patients who might exhibit problem solving, concept formation, and set loss difficulties in everyday living.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document