Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings.

Cooper, Harris M., Rosenthal, Robert·1980·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037//0033-2909.87.3.442

Cites (2)

  1. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
    Rosenthal, Robert · 1979 · Psychological Bulletin
  2. Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research
    GLASS, GENE V · 1976 · Educational Researcher

Show all 2 references

Cited by (24)

  1. Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions
    Cook, Deborah J., Mulrow, Cynthia D., Haynes, R. Brian · 1997 · Annals of Internal Medicine
  2. Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews
    Mulrow, C D · 1994 · BMJ
  3. Children's peer relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status.
    Andrew F. Newcomb, William M. Bukowski, Linda Pattee · 1993 · Psychological Bulletin
  4. Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy
    Nickerson, Raymond S. · 2000 · Psychological Methods
  5. The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis
    Latimer, Jeff, Dowden, Craig, Muise, Danielle · 2005 · The Prison Journal

See all 353

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037//0033-2909.87.3.442
The paper
Cooper, H. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1980). Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.87.3.442

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.