Cited by 168Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsEvaluation and Performance AssessmentDelphi Technique in Research

Advances in statistical methods for meta‐analysis

Hedges, Larry V.·1984·New Directions for Program Evaluation

Abstract

Recent advances in statistical methods for meta‐analysis help reviewers to identify systematic variation in research results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ev.1376

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hedges, L. V.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Hedges, Larry V.
Venue
New Directions for Program Evaluation
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1984-12
Volume
1984
Issue
24
Pages
25-42
ISSN
  • 0164-7989 (ISSN-L)
  • 1551-2371
OpenAlex
W2017931700
Cited by
142
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
10.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
New Directions for Program Evaluation (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
meta-analysis, statistical analysis, systematic variation, evidence synthesis, heterogeneity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review