The state of the art in research synthesis has advanced significantly in the last decade. Much of the improvement in research reviews is attributable to the application of rigorous scientific standards to the process of research synthesis. Three principal types of research syntheses are the narrative review, the replicated secondary analysis, and the meta-analysis or quantitative research synthesis. Each methodology has its strengths and weaknesses, but all have benefited from increased attention to procedural rigor. Modern methods for quantitative research synthesis have significant advantages in that they provide specific tests for the existence and consistency of relationships across studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FeldmanK. A., Using the Work of Others, Sociology of Education, 44, pp. 86–102, 1971.
2.
LightR. J. and SmithP. V., Accumulating Evidence: Procedures for Resolving Contradictions among Different Research Studies, Harvard Educational Review, 41, pp. 429–471, 1971.
3.
GlassG. V., Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research, Educational Researcher, 5, pp. 3–8, 1976.
4.
JacksonG. B., Methods for Integrative Reviews, Review of Educational Research, 50, pp. 438–460, 1980.
5.
GlassG. V.McGawB., and SmithM. L., Meta-Analysis in Social Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, 1981.
6.
CooperH. M., Scientific Guidelines for Conducting Integrative Reviews, Review of Educational Research, 52, pp. 291–302, 1982.
7.
StockW. A.OkunM. A.HaringM. J., Rigor in Data Synthesis: A Case Study of Reliability in Meta-Analysis, Educational Researcher, 11, pp. 10–14, 20, 1982.
8.
MillerG. A., The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Information Processing, Psychological Review, 63, pp. 81–97, 1956.
9.
HumphreysL. G., The Statistics of Failure to Replicate: A Comment on Buriels' (1978) Conclusions, Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, pp. 71–75, 1980.
10.
HedgesL. V. and OlkinI., Vote-Counting Methods in Research Synthesis, Psychological Bulletin, 88, pp. 359–369, 1980.
11.
ElashoffJ. D. and SnowR. E., Pygmalion Reconsidered, Charles A. Jones, Worthington, Ohio, 1971.
12.
MostellerF. and MoynihanD. P., On Equality of Educational Opportunity, Random House, New York, 1972.
13.
CookT. D., The Potential and Limitations of Secondary Evaluations, AppleM. W. (ed.), Educational Evaluation: Analysis and Responsibility, McCutchan, Berkeley, California, 1974.
14.
CochranW. G., Problems Arising in the Analysis of a Series of Similar Experiments, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Supplement, 4, pp. 102–118, 1937.
15.
YatesF. and CochranW. G., The Analysis of Groups of Experiments, Journal of Agricultural Science, 28, pp. 556–580, 1938.
16.
CampbellD. T., Definitional Versus Multiple Operationalism, et al., 2, pp. 14–17, 1969.
17.
HedgesL. V., Estimation of Effect Size from a Series of Independent Experiments, Psychological Bulletin, 92, pp. 490–499, 1982.
18.
HedgesL. V., Fitting Categorical Models to Effect Sizes from a Series of Experiments, Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, pp. 119–137, 1982.
19.
HedgesL. V., Fitting Continuous Models to Effect Size Data, Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, pp. 245–270, 1982.
20.
HedgesL. V. and OlkinI., Regression Models in Research Synthesis, American Statistician, 37, pp. 137–140, 1983.
21.
HedgesL. V. and OlkinI., Clustering Estimates of Effect Magnitude from Independent Experiments, Psychological Bulletin, 93, pp. 563–573, 1983.
22.
PresbyS., Overly Broad Categories Obscure Important Differences Between Therapies, American Psychologist, 33, pp. 514–515, 1978.
23.
HedgesL. V.GiaconiaR. M., and GageN. L., The Empirical Evidence on the Effectiveness of Open Education, final report of the Stanford Research Synthesis Project, Volume II, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1981.
24.
LightR. J. and PillemerD. B., Numbers and Narrative: Combining their Strengths in Research Reviews, Harvard Educational Review, 52, pp. 1–26, 1982.
