Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 413

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A General Linear Model for Estimating Effect Size in the Presence of Publication Bias

Vevea, Jack L., Hedges, Larry V.·1995·Psychometrika

Abstract

When the process of publication favors studies with small p-values, and hence large effect estimates, combined estimates from many studies may be biased. This paper describes a model for estimation of effect size when there is selection based on one-tailed p-values. The model employs the method of maximum likelihood in the context of a mixed (fixed and random) effects general linear model for effect sizes. It offers a test for the presence of publication bias, and corrected estimates of the parameters of the linear model for effect magnitude. The model is illustrated using a well-known data set on the benefits of psychotherapy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf02294384

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 413

Metadata

Authors
Vevea, J. L., & Hedges, L. V.
Venue
Psychometrika
Published
1995-09
Volume
60
Issue
3
Pages
419-435
ISSN
  • 0033-3123 (ISSN-L)
  • 1860-0980
OpenAlex
W2028854990
Cited by
413
References
5
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.