Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,250

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

H.R. Rothstein, A.J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.) (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. NewYork: Wiley, xvii+356 p. US$100.00. ISBN: 0-470-87014-1.

Open access
Viechtbauer, Wolfgang·2007·Psychometrika
DOI 10.1007/s11336-006-1450-y
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Each study that is published about the effect of an independent variable on a dependent one, or the strength of the relationship between two variables, constitutes only a single piece in a constantly growing body of evidence.For example, over one hundred studies have been carried out to determine the relationship between employment interview performance and job performance (McDaniel, Whetzel, Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994).Each study yields a measure of the strength and direction of the association, typically in the form of a correlation coefficient.In some studies, the correlation coefficient is statistically significant, while others do not find a statistically significant association.To make sense of the often-conflicting results found in the literature, one can conduct a meta-analysis (e.g., Cooper, 1998; Cooper & Hedges, 1994;Hedges & Olkin, 1985;Hunter & Schmidt, 2004;Lipsey & Wilson, 2001;Rosenthal, 1991).In essence, the correlation coefficients that we extract from the various studies then become the data for further analysis.For example, if we assume that the observed correlation coefficients only differ from each other due to sampling variability, then the average of the correlation coefficients provides an estimate of the overall validity of employment interviews.However, if the correlation coefficients of published studies differ systematically from those of unpublished studies, then the estimate may be biased (e.g., when studies with statistically significant results are more likely to be published, then the true correlation may be overestimated).In fact, regardless of whether we use meta-analysis, or simply conduct a narrative review to synthesize the relevant literature, the conclusions that we draw may be wrong if the accessible studies (and these typically coincide to a great deal with the ones we find in the published literature) differ systematically from the population of completed studies.This is known as the publication bias problem and constitutes the topic of the book Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments, edited by Rothstein, Sutton, and Borenstein (2005).This is the first book to address this issue in such detail and is likely to become a standard reference for those who carry out systematic literature reviews.The chapters, which were written by leading experts in the field of research synthesis, summarize a substantial amount of research that has been conducted on the issue of publication bias.The following topics are addressed in the chapters:• various forms of publication bias, evidence of its existence, the extent of its influence, and potential causes and consequences of publication bias; • statistical techniques for detecting publication bias, for assessing the sensitivity of conclusions to the possible presence of publication bias, and for adjusting meta-analytic estimates for publication bias; • capabilities of various software packages with respect to these techniques; • strategies for eliminating or at least minimizing the influence of publication bias;• other forms of missing data or data suppression mechanisms besides publication bias that may bias the conclusions from systematic literature reviews; and • other factors that may mimic the appearance of publication bias, but should not be confused with it.

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/s11336-006-1450-y

Cites

3 of 3 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

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. 10.1037/0021-9010.79.4.599 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Lipsey, 2001, Practical meta-analysis
  3. Hedges, 1985, Statistical methods for meta-analysis
  4. Cooper, 1994, The handbook of research synthesis
  5. Cooper, 1998, Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews

Cited by

Items 101–133 of 133

Metadata

Authors
Viechtbauer, W.
Venue
Psychometrika
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2007-06
Volume
72
Issue
2
Pages
269-271
ISSN
  • 0033-3123 (ISSN-L)
  • 1860-0980
DOI
10.1007/s11336-006-1450-y
OpenAlex
W2051663551
Cited by
1,250
References
3
Type
book review
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence

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.