Over the past 25 years, meta-analysis has assumed a significant role in the synthesis of counseling and psychotherapy research through the evaluation and interpretation of the results of multiple studies. An examination of four widely recognized rehabilitation counseling journals, however, reveals that only one meta-analysis (Bolton & Akridge, 1995) has been published during the past 10 years. This article examines the meta-analysis process as a viable method to aggregate multiple studies, discusses common advantages and criticisms of meta-analysis, and provides suggestions specific to how meta-analyses may be applied to investigate rehabilitation outcomes. In addition, new applications of meta-analysis that have been discovered and refined in recent years are presented through a reanalysis of the Bolton and Akridge (1995) meta-analysis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator—mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173—1182.
2.
Bat-Chava, Y. (1993). Antecedents of self-esteem in deaf people: A meta-analytic review. Rehabilitation Psychology, 38(4), 221—234.
3.
Bellini, J.L., & Rumrill, P.D. (1999). Research in rehabilitation counseling: A guide to design, methodology, and utilization. Springfield, IL : Thomas.
4.
Bolton, B., & Akridge, R.L. (1995). A meta-analysis of skills training programs for rehabilitation clients. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin , 38, 262—273.
5.
Cohen, J. (1988). Set correlation and contingency tables. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12(4), 425—434.
6.
Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). The American Psychologist, 49(12), 997—1003.
7.
Cottone, R. (1987). Toward a systemic theoretical framework for vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling , 17(4), 4—7.
8.
Fleiss, J.L. (1994). Measures of effect size for categorical data. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 245—260). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
9.
Gleser, L.J., & Olkin, I. (1994). Stochastically dependent effect sizes. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 339—355). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
10.
Gliner, J.A., Morgan, G.A., & Harmon, R.J. (2003). Meta-analysis: Formulation and interpretation . Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42, 1376—1380.
11.
Hedges, L.V. (1994). Statistical considerations: Measures of effect size for categorical data. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 29—38). New York : Russell Sage Foundation.
12.
Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
13.
Hedges, L.V., & Vevea, J.L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis . Psychological Methods, 3(4), 486—504.
14.
Hershenson, D. (2000). Toward a cultural anthropology of disability and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 43(3), 34—52.
15.
Hunt, M. (1997). How science takes stock. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
16.
Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. London: Sage.
17.
Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (1996). Cumulative research knowledge and social policy formulation: The critical role of meta-analysis. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 324—347.
18.
Kirk, R.E. (1982). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
19.
Lambert, M.J., & Hill, C.E. (1994). Assessing psychotherapy outcomes and processes . In A. Bergin & S. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed., pp. 72—113). Oxford, England: Wiley.
Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D.B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. The American Psychologist, 48, 1181—1209.
22.
Ottenbacher, K., Msall, M.E., & Lyon, N. (1999). Measuring developmental and functional status in children with disabilities. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 41(3), 186—194.
23.
Raudenbush, S.W. (1994). Random effects models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 301—321). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
24.
Rosenthal, D., Ferrin, M., Wilson, K., & Frain, M. (2005). Acceptance rates of African American versus White consumers of vocational rehabilitation services: A meta-analysis. Journal of Rehabilitation, 71(3), 36—44.
25.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231— 244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation .
26.
Serlin, R.C., Wampold, B.E., & Levin, J.R. (2003). Should providers of treatment be regarded as a random factor? If it ain't broke, don't “fix” it: A comment on Siemer and Joormann. Psychological Methods, 8(4), 524—534.
27.
Shadish, W.R., & Haddock, C.K. (1994). Combining estimates of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 261—281). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
28.
Smith, M.L., & Glass, G.V. (1977). Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies . The American Psychologist, 32(9), 752—760.
29.
Thompson, B. (2002). What future quantitative social science research could look like: Confidence intervals for effect sizes. Educational Researcher, 31(3), 24—31.
30.
Wampold, B.E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and findings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
31.
Wampold, B.E., Mondin, G.W., Moody, M., Stich, F., Benson, K., & Ahn, H. (1997). A meta-analysis of outcome studies comparing bona fide psychotherapies: Empirically, “all must have prizes.” Psychological Bulletin,122, 203—215.
32.
White, H.D. (1994). Scientific communication and literature retrieval . In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 41—56). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
33.
Wilson, D.B., & Lipsey, M.W. (2001). The role of method in treatment effectiveness research: Evidence from meta-analysis. Psychological Methods , 6, 413—429.
