CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,977Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceReliability and Agreement in Measurement

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis.

Hedges, Larry V., Vevea, Jack L.·1998·Psychological Methods
DOI 10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There are 2 families of statistical procedures in meta-analysis: fixed- and randomeffects procedures. They were developed for somewhat different inference goals: making inferences about the effect parameters in the studies that have been observed versus making inferences about the distribution of effect parameters in a population of studies from a random sample of studies. The authors evaluate the performance of confidence intervals and hypothesis tests when each type of statistical procedure is used for each type of inference and confirm that each procedure is best for making the kind of inference for which it was designed. Conditionally random-effects procedures (a hybrid type) are shown to have properties in between those of fixed- and random-effects procedures. The use of quantitative methods to summarize the results of several empirical research studies, or metaanalysis, is now widely used in psychology, medicine, and the social sciences. Meta-analysis usually involves describing the results of each study by means of a numerical index (an estimate of effect size, such as a correlation coefficient, a standardized mean difference, or an odds ratio) and then combining these estimates across studies to obtain a summary. Two somewhat different statistical models have been developed for inference about average effect size from a collection of studies, called the fixed-effects and random-effects models. (A third alternative, the mixedeffects model, arises in conjunction with analyses involving study-level covariates or moderator variables, which we do not consider in this article; see Hedges, 1992.) Fixed-effects models treat the effect-size parameters as fixed but unknown constants to be estimated and usually (but not necessarily) are used in conjunction with assumptions about the homogeneity of effect parameters (see, e.g., Hedges, 1982; Rosenthal & Rubin, 1982). Random-effects models treat the effectsize parameters as if they were a random sample from

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
ORCID
Hedges, Larry V.
Venue
Psychological Methods
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1998-12
Volume
3
Issue
4
Pages
486-504
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
DOI
10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486
OpenAlex
W1964605289
Semantic Scholar
48a2d7ae1a17b8fec9cb05a9dd68c1f2784f2ba7
Cited by
2,977
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 120 · 2025: 127 · 2024: 164 · 2023: 176 · 2022: 159 · 2021: 226 · 2020: 194 · 2019: 163 · 2018: 164 · 2017: 188 · 2016: 146 · 2015: 148 · 2014: 160 · 2013: 120 · 2012: 101
FWCI
11.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
fixed effects model, random effects models, meta-analysis, confidence intervals, hypothesis testing, effect size heterogeneity, statistical model comparison

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