This article discusses the basic assumptions and practices for meta-analysis as well as describing options and innovations for implementing this tool. Meta-analysis represents a family of techniques with different assumptions and procedures. I discuss some of the ongoing debates and limitations of the methods that continue to receive attention. In an era of “evidence-based” applications and educational material, meta-analysis (in all the forms) represents the best way to reduce Type II error and identify Type I error. Use of the technique provides facilitates the formulation and evaluation theoretical arguments as well as identifying the means to optimally generate future research efforts. The process of meta-analysis takes the scientist back to the future by reminding the community of the original premises that guided the formation of the statistical process.
AllenM. (1989). A comparison of self-report, observer, and physiological assessments of public speaking anxiety reduction techniques using meta-analysis. Communication Studies, 40, 127-139. doi:10.1080/10510978909368262
2.
AllenM. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing effectiveness of one and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 390-404. doi:10.1080/10570319109374395
3.
AllenM. (1998). Comparing the persuasive effectiveness of one- and two-sided messages. In AllenM.PreissR. (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 87-98). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
4.
AllenM. (2009). Meta-analysis. Communication Monographs, 76, 398-407. doi:10.1080/03637750903310386
5.
AllenM. (2017). Meta-analysis: Model testing. In AllenM. (Ed.), SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods (Vol. 1-4, pp. 998-1001). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483381411.n345
6.
AllenM.BourhisJ.MabryE.Emmers-SommerT.TitsworthS.BurrellN.. . . WellsS. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction of distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16, 83-97. doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1602_3
7.
AllenM.BourhisJ.TenzekK. E.BaumanI. (2014). Reducing homophobia: A meta-analytic summary of technique effectiveness. In BurrellN.AllenM.GayleB.PreissR. (Eds.), Managing interpersonal conflict: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 271-283). New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
AllenM.D’AlessioD.BurrellN. (2011). The implications and consequences of using meta-analysis for political communication. In BucyE.HolbertR. L. (Eds.), The sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 114-128). New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
AllenM.DilbeckK. (2018). Meta-analysis. In MalthesJ. (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 128-131). New York, NY: John Wiley.
10.
AllenM.DilbeckK.EnglandN.HerrmanA. R.KartchF. F.KimJ.. . . OmoriK. (2014). Test of causal model for sexual harassment using data from a meta-analysis. In BurrellN.AllenM.GayleB.PreissR. (Eds.), Managing interpersonal conflict: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 94-105). New York. NY: Routledge.
11.
AllenM.Emmers-SommerT. M.D’AlessioD.TimmermanL.HanzalA.KorusJ. (2007). The connection between the physiological and psychological reactions to sexually explicit materials: A literature summary using meta-analysis. Communication Monographs, 74, 541-560. doi:10.1080/03637750701578648
12.
AllenM.HunterJ.DonohueW. (1989). Meta-analysis of self-report data on the effectiveness of public speaking anxiety treatment techniques. Communication Education, 38, 54-76. doi:10.1080/03634528909378740
13.
AllenM.PreissR. (1990). Using meta-analysis to evaluate curriculum: An examination of selected college textbooks. Communication Education, 39, 103-116. doi:10.1080/03634529009378793
14.
AllenM.PreissR. (1998). Evaluating the advice offered by the tool users. In AllenM.PreissR. (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 243-256). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
15.
AllenM.PreissR. (2002). An analysis of textbooks in interpersonal communication: How accurate are the representations? In AllenM.PreissR.GayleB.BurrellN. (Eds.), Interpersonal Communication Research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 371-388). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
AllenM.PreissR. (2006). What to do in the classroom? Evaluating the advice. In GayleB.PreissR.BurrellN.MM. Allen. (Eds.), Classroom communication and instructional processes: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 405-422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
AllenM.PreissR.BurrellN. (2007). The challenge of media effects for teaching and policy. In PreissR.GayleB.BurrellN.AllenM.JJ. Bryant. (Eds.), Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 489-504). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
AllenM.PreissR.GayleB.BurrellN. (Eds.). (2002). Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
AllenM.TitsworthS.HuntS. K. (2009). Quantitative research in communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
AnkerA. E.ReinhartA. M.FeeleyT. H. (2010). Meta-analysis of meta-analyses in communication: Comparing fixed effects and random effects analysis models. Communication Quarterly, 58, 257-278. doi:10.1080/01463373.2010.503154
21.
BaronR. M.KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical consideration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
22.
BeckerB. J. (2001). Examining theoretical models through research synthesis: The benefits of model-driven meta-analysis. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 24, 190-217. doi:10.1177/01632780122034876
23.
BeckerB. J.SchramC. M. (1994). Examining explanatory models through research synthesis. In CooperH.HedgesL. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 357-382). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
24.
BeggC. B. (1994). Publication bias. In CooperH.HedgesL. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 399-410). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
25.
BergerC. R.CalabreseR. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x
26.
BlochM. H. (2014). Meta-analysis and moderator analysis: Can the field develop further?Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 53, 135-137. doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2013.12.001
27.
BollenK. A.StineR. (1989). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20, 115-133. doi:10.2307/271084
28.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, England: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470743386
29.
BradfordL.AllenM.CaseyM.Emmers-SommerT. (2002). A meta-analysis examining the relationship between Latino acculturation levels and HIV/AIDS risk behaviors, condom use, and HIV/AIDS knowledge. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 31, 167-180.
30.
BurrellN. A.AllenM.GayleB. M.PreissR. W. (Eds.). (2014). Managing interpersonal conflict: Advances through meta-analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
31.
CaseyM.AllenM.Emmers-SommerT.SahlsteinE.DeGooyerD.WintersA.. . . DunT. (2003). When a celebrity contracts a disease: The example of Earvin “Magic” Johnson’s announcement that he was HIV positive. Journal of Health Communication, 8, 249-266. doi:10.1080/10810730305682
32.
ChalmersI.HedgesL. V.CooperH. (2002). A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 25, 12-37. doi:10.1177/0163278702025001003
33.
CohenJ. (1987). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
CookT. D.CooperH.CordrayD. S.HarmannH.HedgesL. V.LightR. J.. . . MostellerF. (Eds.). (1992). Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
35.
CooperH. M. (1989). Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36.
CooperH. M.HedgesL. V. (Eds.). (1994). The handbook or research synthesis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
D’AlessioD.AllenM. (2000). Media bias in presidential elections: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 50, 133-156. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02866.x
39.
DillardJ. P.HunterJ.BurgoonM. (1984). Sequential-request persuasive strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research, 10, 461-488. doi:10/1111/j.1468-2958.1984.tb00028.x
40.
DindiaK.AllenM. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 106-124. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.106
41.
DruckmanD. (1994). Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38, 507-556.
42.
DubinR. (1978). Theory building (2nd ed.). Detroit, MI: Free Press.
43.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (1994). Using research syntheses to plan future research. In CooperH.HedgesL. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 485-502). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
44.
EisendM. (2006). Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 187-198. doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2005.11.001
45.
Emmers-SommerT.AllenM. (1999). Surveying the effect of media effects: A meta-analytic summary of the media effects research in Human Communication Research. Human Communication Research, 25, 478-497. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1999.tb00457.x
46.
FeeleyT. H.AnkerA. E.AloeA. M. (2012). The door-in-the-face persuasive message meta-analysis of the first 35 years. Communication Monographs, 79, 316-343. doi:10/1080/03637751.2012.697631
47.
FernE.MonroeK.AvilaR. (1986). Effectiveness of multiple request strategies: A synthesis of research results. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 144-152. doi:10.2307/3151661
48.
FleissJ. L. (1994). Measures of effect size for categorical data. In CooperH.HedgesL. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 245-260). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
49.
FriedY.ShiromA.GilboaS.CooperC. L. (2008). The mediating effects of job satisfaction and propensity to leave on role job performance Relationships: Combining meta-analysis and structural equation modeling. International Journal of Stress Management, 15, 305-328. doi:10.1037/a0013932
50.
GayleB.PreissR.BurrellN.AllenM. (Eds.). (2006). Classroom communication and instructional processes: Advances through meta-analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51.
GhiselliE. E.CampbellJ. P.ZedeckS. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
52.
GrissomR. J.KimJ. J. (2003). Effect sizes for research: A broad practical approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53.
HaleJ. R.HouseholderB. J.GreeneK. J. (2002). The theory of reasoned action. In DillardJ.PfauM. (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 259-288). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54.
HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (1991). Testing for moderator variables in meta-analysis: Issues and methods. Communication Monographs, 58, 437-448. doi:10.1080/03637759109376240
Herrett-SkjellumJ.AllenM. (1996). Television programming and sexual stereotypes: A meta-analysis. In BurlesonB. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 19 (pp. 157-186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
57.
HouwelingenH. C.ArendsL. R.StijenT. (2002). Advanced methods in meta-analysis: Multivariate approach and meta-regression. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 589-624. doi:10.1002/sim.1040
58.
HunterJ.E.HamiltonM.AllenM. (1989). The design and analysis of language experiments in communication. Communication Monographs, 56, 341-363. doi: 10.1080/03637758909390269
59.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. (1994). Correcting for sources of artificial variation across studies. In CooperH.HedgesL. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 323-336). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
60.
JakS. (2015). Meta-analytic structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Springer.
61.
JohnsonB. T.MullenB.SalasE. (1995). Comparison of three major meta-analytic approaches. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 94-106. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.94
62.
KaufmannE.WittmannW. W. (2016). The success and linear bootstrapping models: Decision domain-, expertise-, and criterion-specific meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 11, e0157914. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157914
63.
KimS. Y.AllenM.PreissR. (2019). Meta-analysis of the curvilinear relationship between rate of delivery and message persuasiveness. Communication, Society and Media, 2, 1-25. doi:10.22158/csm.v2n1p1
64.
KöymenU. (1992). Comparison of learning and study strategies of traditional and open-learning system students in Turkey. Distance Education, 13, 108-117. doi:10.1080/0158791920130109
65.
LevineT.AsadaK. J.CarpenterC. (2009). Sample sizes and effect sizes are negatively correlated in meta-analyses: Evidence and implications of publication bias against nonsignificant findings. Communication Monographs, 76, 286-302. doi:10.1080/0363775093074685
66.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
67.
MaierM.AllenM.BurrellN. (2014). International conflict and intervention: Application of structural-attitudinal-transactional model. In BurrellN.AllenM.GayleB.PreissR. (Eds.), Managing interpersonal conflict: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 181-194). New York, NY: Routledge.
68.
MendozaJ. L.MumfordM. (1987). Corrections for attenuation and range restriction on the predictor. Journal of Educational Statistics, 12, 282-293. doi:10.2307/1164688
69.
MillerN.PollockV. E. (1994). Meta-analytic synthesis for theory development. In CooperH.HedgesL. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 457-484). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
70.
MullenB. (1989). Advanced BASIC meta-analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
71.
O’KeefeD. J. (1975). Logical empiricism and the study of human communication. Communication Monographs, 42, 169-183.
72.
O’KeefeD. J. (1999). How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. Annals of the International Communication Association, 22, 209-249. doi:10.1080/23808985.1999.11678963
73.
O’KeefeD. J.HaleS. L. (1998). The door-in-the-face influence strategy: A random-effects meta-analytic review. Annals of the International Communication Association, 21, 1-33.
74.
O’KeefeD. J.HaleS. L. (2001). An odds-ratio-based meta-analysis of research on the door-in-the-face influence strategy. Communication Reports, 14, 31-38. doi:10.1080/08934210109367734
75.
O’KeefeD. J.JensenJ. D. (2006). The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of noncompliance? A meta-analytic review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. Annals of the International Communication Association, 30, 1-43. doi:10.1080/23808985.2006.11679054
76.
O’KeefeD. J.JensenJ. D. (2008). Do loss-framed persuasive messages engender greater message processing than do gain-framed messages? A meta-analytic review. Communication Studies, 59, 51-67. doi:10.1080/10510970701849388
77.
O’KeefeD. J.JensenJ. D. (2009). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 59, 296-316. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01417.x
78.
O’KeefeD. J.JensenJ. D. (2011). The relative effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed persuasive appeals concerning obesity-related behaviors: Meta-analytic evidence and implications. In BatraR.KellerP. A.StrecherV. J. (Eds.), Leveraging consumer psychology for effective health communications: The obesity challenge (pp. 171-185). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
79.
O’KeefeD. J.NanX. (2012). The relative persuasiveness of gain- and loss-framed messages for promoting vaccination: A meta-analytic review. Health Communication, 27, 776-783. doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.640974
80.
O’KeefeD. J.WuD. (2012). Gain-framed appeals do not motivate sun protection: A meta-analytic review of randomized trials comparing gain-framed and loss-framed appeals for promoting skin cancer prevention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9, 2121-2133. doi:10.3390/ijerph9062121
81.
OnesD. S.ViswesvaranC.SchmidtF. L. (2017). Realizing the full potential of psychometric meta-analysis for a cumulative science and practice of human resource management. Human Resource Management Review, 27, 201-215. doi:10/1016/j.hrmr.2016.09.011
82.
OsgoodC.SuciG.TannenbaumP. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
83.
PascualA.GuéguenN. (2005). Foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face: A comparative meta-analytic study. Psychological Reports, 96, 122-128. doi:10.2466/PR0.96.1.122-128
84.
PearsonK. (1904). Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. British Medical Journal, 3, 1243-1246.
85.
PettittiD. B. (2000). Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis: Methods for quantitative synthesis in medicine (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
86.
PreissR.GayleB.BurrellN.AllenM.BryantJ. (Eds.). (2007). Mass media effects research: Advances through meta-analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
87.
RadenbushS. W. (1994). Random effects models. In CooperH.HedgesL. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 301-323). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
88.
RosenthalR. (1979). The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641. doi:10.1037=0033–2909.86.3.638
89.
RosenthalR. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
90.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L.RubinD. B. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
91.
RuppelE. K.GrossC.StollA.PeckB. S.AllenM.KimS.-Y. (2017). Reflecting on connecting: Meta-analysis of differences between computer-mediated and face-to-face self-disclosure. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 22, 18-34. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12179
92.
SalazarA.GonzalezJ. M. H.DuystersG.SabidussiA.AllenM. (2016). The value for innovation of inter-firm networks and forming alliances: A meta-analytic model of indirect effects. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 285-298. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.05.073
93.
SchmidtF.HunterJ. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting for error and bias in researching findings (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483398105
94.
SchulzeR. (2004). Meta-analysis: A comparison of approaches (2004). Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe & Huber.
95.
ShadishW. R. (1996). Meta-analysis and the exploration of causal mediating processes: A primer of examples, methods, and issues. Psychological Methods, 11, 47-65. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.47
96.
SongH.Zmyslinski-SeeligA.KimJ.DrentA. M.VictorA.OmoriK.AllenM. R. (2014). Does Facebook make you lonely? A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 446-452. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.011
97.
StevensS. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677-680. doi:10.1126/science.103.2684.677
98.
TimmermanL.AllenM.JorgensenJ.Herrett-SkjellumJ.KramerM. R.RyanD. (2008). A review and meta-analysis examining the relationship of music content with sex, race, priming, and attitudes. Communication Quarterly, 56, 303-324. doi:10.1080/01463370802240932
99.
TurkiewiczK. L.AllenM. (2014). The effectiveness of environmental mediation. In BurrellN.AllenM.GayleB.PreissR. (Eds.), Managing interpersonal conflict: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 125-139). New York, NY: Routledge.
100.
TurkiewiczK. L.AllenM.VenetisM.RobinsonJ.D. (2014). Observed communication between oncologists and patients: A causal model of communication competence. World Journal of Meta-Analysis, 2, 186-193. doi:10.13105/wjma.v2.i4.186
101.
VenetisM. K.RobinsonJ. K.TurkiewiczK. L.AllenM. (2009). An evidence base for patient-centered cancer care: A meta-analysis of studies of observed communication between cancer specialists and their patients. Patient Education and Counseling, 77, 379-383. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.015
102.
WachterK. W.StrafM. L. (1990). The future of meta-analysis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
103.
WitteK.AllenM. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27, 591-615. doi:10.1177/109019810002700506
104.
WortmanP. M. (1994). Judging research quality. In CooperH.HedgesL. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 97-110). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
