When three different forms of research reviews all reach the same conclusion, that health and subjective well-being have a modest positive correlation, the finding is convincing. Despite the consistent findings, different methods of reviewing research have different strengths. A meta-analysis emphasizes measures of central tendency. A narrative review, in contrast, can focus upon details in deviant findings. Using these methods together provides good information when aggregating findings from many studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
RosenthalR. and RubinD. B., A Simple, General Purpose Display of Magnitude of Experimental Effect, Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, pp. 166–169, 1982.
2.
MostellerF. and TukeyJ. W., Data Analysis and Regression: A Second Course in Statistics, Addison Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1977.
3.
LightR. J., Synthesis Methods: Some Judgment Calls that Must Be Made, Evaluation in Education: An International Journal, 4, pp. 18–21, 1980.
4.
ChalmersT. C., The Randomized Control Trial as a Basis for Therapeutic Decisions, in The Randomized Clinical Trial and Therapeutic DecisionsLachinJ. M.TygstrupN., and JuhlE. (eds.), Marcel Dekker, New York, 1982.
5.
SmithM. L., Publication Bias and Meta-Analysis, Evaluation in Education: An International Journal, 4, pp. 22–24, 1980.
6.
GlassG. V.McGawB., and SmithM. L., Meta-Analysis of Social Research, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California, 1981.
7.
LightR. J. and PillemerD. B., Numbers and Narrative: Combining Their Strengths in Research Reviews, Harvard Educational Review, 52, pp. 1–26, 1982.
8.
MostellerF. and MoynihanD. P., On Equality of Educational Opportunity, Vintage Books, New York, 1972.
