Meta-analysis represents a technique with almost limitless potential to improve the practice ofpersons in the health professions. However, the technique is not without limitations that deserve careful consideration when going over any meta-analyticfinding. The essayprovides some perspectives on the possible uses of meta-analyses and standards that permit the evaluation of the worth of any particular meta-analysis. As with primary research, the meta-analytic reviewer must make a decision, and the consumer (reader) must evaluate those choices. This article offers an exploration of those choices and some of the potential consequences of those choices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allen, M.
, Emmers, T., Gebhardt, L., & Giery, M. (1995). Pornography and rape myth acceptance. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 5-26.
2.
Allen, M.
, Hunter, J. E., & Donohue, W. A. (1989). Meta-analysis of self-report data on the effectiveness of public speaking anxiety treatment techniques. Communication Education, 38,54-76.
3.
Allen, M.
, & Preiss, R. (1993). Replication and meta-analysis: A necessary connection. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 9-20.
4.
Allen, M.
, & Preiss, R. W. (1990). Using meta-analysis to evaluate curriculum: An examination of selected college textbooks. Communication Education, 39, 103-116.
5.
Altman, L.
(1991, May 7). Textbooks fall behind advances in medicine. New York Times, p. 7-7.
6.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L.
(1986). Review of developments in meta-analytic method. Psychological Bulletin, 99,388-399.
7.
Bullock, R. J.
, & Svyantek, D. J. (1985). Analyzing meta-analysis: Potential problems, and unsuccessful replication, and evaluation criteria. Applied Psychology, 70, 108-115.
8.
Chalmers, T.
, & Keirse, M. (Eds.). (1989). Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
Cook, D.
, Guyatt, G., Ryan, G., Clifton, J., Buckingham, L., Willan, A., McIlroy, W., & Oxman, A. (1993). Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. Journal of the American Medical Association, 269, 2749-2753.
10.
Cook, T.
, Cooper, H., Corday, D., Hartmann, H., Hedges, L., Light, R., Louis, T., & Mosteller, F. (Eds.). (1992). Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook. New York: Russell Sage.
11.
Cook, T.
, & Leviton, C. (1980). Reviewing the literature: A comparison of traditional methods with meta-analysis. Journal of Personality, 48, 449-472.
12.
Cooper, H.
(1982). Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative literature reviews. Review of Educational Research, S2, 291-302.
13.
Cooper, H.
, & Hedges, L. (Eds.). (1994). The handbookof research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage.
14.
Cooper, H. M.
, & Rosenthal, R. (1980). Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 87,442-449.
15.
Coursol, A.
, & Wagner, E. E. (1986). Effect of positive findings on submission and acceptance rates: A note on meta-analysis bias. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 136-167.
16.
Dillard, J. P.
, Hunter, J. E., & Burgoon, M. (1984). Sequential-request persuasive strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research, 10,461-488.
17.
Eysenck, J. J.
(1984). Meta-analysis: An abuse of research integration. Journal of Special Education, 18,41-59.
18.
Glass, G. V.
(1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5,3-8.
19.
Glass, G. V.
(1977). Integrating findings: Meta-analysis of research. Review of Research in Education, 5, 16-18.
20.
Glass, G. V.
(1983). Synthesizing empirical research: Meta-analysis. In S. A. Ward & L. J. Reed (Eds.), Knowledge structure and use: Implications for synthesis and interpretation (pp. 399-421). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
21.
Glass, G. V.
, McGaw, B., & Smith, M. G. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
22.
Greenwald, A. G.
(1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 1-20.
23.
Guskin, S. L.
(1984). Problems and promises of meta-analysis in special education. Journal of Special Education, 18, 73-80.
24.
Hattie, J. A.
, & Hansford, B. C. (1984). Meta-analysis: A reflection on problems. Australian Journal of Psychology, 26, 239-254.
25.
Hedges, L.
(1986). Arandom effects model foreffect sizes. PsychologicalBulletin, 93,388-395.
26.
Hedges, L. V.
, & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methodsformeta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.
27.
Hunter, J. E.
, & Schmidt, F. (1990). Methods for meta-analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
Hunter, J. E.
, Schmidt, F.L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982).Meta-analysis: Cumulatingfindings across research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
29.
Jackson, G. B.
(1980). Methods for integrative reviews. Review of Educational Research, 50, 438-460.
30.
Jackson, S.
, O'Keefe, D. J., Jacobs, S., & Brashers, D. E. (1989). Messages as replications toward a message-centered design strategy. Communication Monographs, 56, 364-384.
31.
Johnson, B.
, Mullen, B., & Salas, E. (1995). Comparison of three major meta-analytic approaches. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 94-106.
32.
Kavale, K. A.
(1984). Potential advantages of the meta-analysis technique forresearch in special education. Journal of Special Education, 18, 62-72.
33.
Light, R. J.
, & Pillemer, D. B. (1982). Numbers and narratives: Combining their strengths in research reviews. Harvard Educational Review, 52, 1-26.
34.
Light, R. J.
, & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
Lipsey, M.
, & Wilson, D. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48,1181-1209.
36.
Mann, C.
(1990). Meta-analysis in the breech. Science, 249, 476-480.
37.
Matt, G.
(1989). Decision rules for selecting effect sizes in meta-analysis: A review and reanalysis of psycho-therapy outcome studies. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 106-115.
38.
Preiss, R.
, & Allen, M. (1994). The persuasive effects of incentives on counterattitudinal advocacy. In M. Allen & R. Preiss (Eds.), Prospects and precautions in the use of metaanalysis (pp. 339-361). Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark
39.
Preiss, R.
, Wheeless, L., & Allen, M. (1990). The cognitive consequences of receiver apprehension: An empirical review. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 155-172.
40.
Rosenthal, R.
(1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
41.
Rosenthal, R.
(1987). Judgment studies: Design, analysis and meta-analysis. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
42.
Schmidt, F.
, Hunter, J., Pearlman, K., Hirsh, H., Sackett, P., Schmidt, N., Kehoe, J., Tenopry, M., & Zedeck, S. (1985). Forty questions about validity generalization and meta-analysis and commentary. Personnel Psychology, 38, 697-799.
43.
Schwarzer, R.
, & Leppin, A. (1989). Social support and health: Ameta-analysis. Psychology and Health, 3, 1-15.
44.
Smith, M. L.
(1980). Publication bias and meta-analysis. In H. J. Walberg & E. J. Haertel (Eds.), Evaluation in education (Vol. 4, pp. 109-125). London: Pergamon.
45.
Smith, M. L.
, & Glass, G. V. (1977). Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychologist, 32, 752-760.
46.
Spector, P.
, & Levine, E. (1987). Meta-analysis for integrating study outcomes: A Monte Carlo study of its susceptibility to Type I and Type II error. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 72, 3-9.
47.
Strube, M. J.
, Gardner, W., & Hartmann, D. P. (1985). Limitations, liabilities, and obstacles in reviews of the literature: The current status of meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 51, 63-78.
48.
Strube, M. J.
, & Hartmann, D. P. (1982). A critical appraisal of meta-analysis. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 63-78.
49.
Strube, M. J.
, & Hartmann, D. P. (1983). Meta-analysis: Techniques, applications, and functions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 14-27.
50.
Sutton, S.
(1982). Fear arousing communications: Acritical examination of theory and research. InJ. Eiser (Ed.), Socialpsychology and behavioral medicine (pp. 303-337). New York: Wiley.
51.
Terpstra, D.
(1981). Relationship between methodological rigor and reported outcomes in organization development evaluation research. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 66, 541-543.
52.
Tracz, S. M. (1984). The effect of violation of the asswnption of independence when combining correlation coefficients in a meta-analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
53.
Under the metascope. (1992, May 18). Economist, pp. 91-92.
54.
Wachter, K.
, & Straf, M. (Eds.). (1990). The future of meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage.
55.
Wolf, J.
(1986). Meta-analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
