An Empirical Assessment of Meta-Analytic Practice

Nathan Dieckmann, Bertram F. Malle, Todd E. Bodner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In the three decades after the publication of the first meta-analyses in the behavioral sciences, hundreds of articles and a number of technical guides have emerged concerning meta-analytic practice and reporting standards. The purpose of the present study is to review the practice and reporting standards of a random sample of published meta-analyses (n = 100) in psychology and related disciplines in the decade from 1994 through 2004. We focus on practice and reporting at each stage of the meta-analytic process and explore differences between psychological subdisciplines. These findings suggest that the practice of meta-analysis in the last decade has not yet converged on a set of common standards, though some expert recommendations are beginning to be heeded. Authors should be attentive to proper procedure and reporting in light of the numerous threats to the validity of a meta-analysis. Ironically, even though meta-analysts often struggle with incomplete or inconsistent reporting in primary research they are themselves not entirely consistent in reporting their methods and results.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)101-115
Number of pages15
JournalReview of General Psychology
Volume13
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Psychology
Behavioral Sciences
Publications
Research

Keywords

  • literature review
  • meta-analysis
  • methodology
  • research synthesis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

An Empirical Assessment of Meta-Analytic Practice. / Dieckmann, Nathan; Malle, Bertram F.; Bodner, Todd E.

In: Review of General Psychology, Vol. 13, No. 2, 06.2009, p. 101-115.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dieckmann, Nathan ; Malle, Bertram F. ; Bodner, Todd E. / An Empirical Assessment of Meta-Analytic Practice. In: Review of General Psychology. 2009 ; Vol. 13, No. 2. pp. 101-115.
@article{ca34ee3128294a35b93fac3802b0c041,
title = "An Empirical Assessment of Meta-Analytic Practice",
abstract = "In the three decades after the publication of the first meta-analyses in the behavioral sciences, hundreds of articles and a number of technical guides have emerged concerning meta-analytic practice and reporting standards. The purpose of the present study is to review the practice and reporting standards of a random sample of published meta-analyses (n = 100) in psychology and related disciplines in the decade from 1994 through 2004. We focus on practice and reporting at each stage of the meta-analytic process and explore differences between psychological subdisciplines. These findings suggest that the practice of meta-analysis in the last decade has not yet converged on a set of common standards, though some expert recommendations are beginning to be heeded. Authors should be attentive to proper procedure and reporting in light of the numerous threats to the validity of a meta-analysis. Ironically, even though meta-analysts often struggle with incomplete or inconsistent reporting in primary research they are themselves not entirely consistent in reporting their methods and results.",
keywords = "literature review, meta-analysis, methodology, research synthesis",
author = "Nathan Dieckmann and Malle, {Bertram F.} and Bodner, {Todd E.}",
year = "2009",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1037/a0015107",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "101--115",
journal = "Review of General Psychology",
issn = "1089-2680",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An Empirical Assessment of Meta-Analytic Practice

AU - Dieckmann, Nathan

AU - Malle, Bertram F.

AU - Bodner, Todd E.

PY - 2009/6

Y1 - 2009/6

N2 - In the three decades after the publication of the first meta-analyses in the behavioral sciences, hundreds of articles and a number of technical guides have emerged concerning meta-analytic practice and reporting standards. The purpose of the present study is to review the practice and reporting standards of a random sample of published meta-analyses (n = 100) in psychology and related disciplines in the decade from 1994 through 2004. We focus on practice and reporting at each stage of the meta-analytic process and explore differences between psychological subdisciplines. These findings suggest that the practice of meta-analysis in the last decade has not yet converged on a set of common standards, though some expert recommendations are beginning to be heeded. Authors should be attentive to proper procedure and reporting in light of the numerous threats to the validity of a meta-analysis. Ironically, even though meta-analysts often struggle with incomplete or inconsistent reporting in primary research they are themselves not entirely consistent in reporting their methods and results.

AB - In the three decades after the publication of the first meta-analyses in the behavioral sciences, hundreds of articles and a number of technical guides have emerged concerning meta-analytic practice and reporting standards. The purpose of the present study is to review the practice and reporting standards of a random sample of published meta-analyses (n = 100) in psychology and related disciplines in the decade from 1994 through 2004. We focus on practice and reporting at each stage of the meta-analytic process and explore differences between psychological subdisciplines. These findings suggest that the practice of meta-analysis in the last decade has not yet converged on a set of common standards, though some expert recommendations are beginning to be heeded. Authors should be attentive to proper procedure and reporting in light of the numerous threats to the validity of a meta-analysis. Ironically, even though meta-analysts often struggle with incomplete or inconsistent reporting in primary research they are themselves not entirely consistent in reporting their methods and results.

KW - literature review

KW - meta-analysis

KW - methodology

KW - research synthesis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=66949132171&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=66949132171&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/a0015107

DO - 10.1037/a0015107

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 101

EP - 115

JO - Review of General Psychology

JF - Review of General Psychology

SN - 1089-2680

IS - 2

ER -