CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,108Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and Bibliometricsscientometrics and bibliometrics research

Writing meta-analytic reviews.

Rosenthal, Robert·1995·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.183
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article describes what should typically be included in the introduction, method, results, and discussion sections of a meta-analytic review. Method sections include information on literature searches, criteria for inclusion of studies, and a listing of the characteristics recorded for each study. Results sections include information describing the distribution of obtained effect sizes, central ten-dencies, variability, tests of significance, confidence intervals, tests for heterogeneity, and contrasts (univariate or multivariate). The interpretation of meta-analytic results is often facilitated by the inclusion of the binomial effect size display procedure, the coefficient of robustness, file drawer analysis, and, where overall results are not significant, the counternull value of the obtained effect size and power analysis. The purpose of this article is to provide some guidelines for the preparation of meta-analytic reviews of literature. Meta-an-alytic reviews are quantitative summaries of research domains that describe the typical strength of the effect or phenomenon, its variability, its statistical significance, and the nature of the moderator variables from which one can predict the relative strength of the effect or phenomenon (Cooper, 1989; Glass,

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.183

Cites

45 of 45 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.

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?

  • Heterogeneity of effect size and significance of categorical moderators were determined by Q-statistics, and dimensional moderators were determined by mixed-effects-model metaregressions.

    “Heterogeneity of effect size and signi fi cance of categorical moderators were determined by Q -statistics, 38,39 and dimensional moderators were determined by mixed-effects -model metaregressions. 40”

    From Parenting Behavior and Child Language: A Meta-analysis. (2019) · cites this paper as [38]

  • In one study, a nonsignificant finding was reported without accompanying statistical information, and P = .50 was entered into the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software.

    “In 1 study, a nonsigni fi cant fi nding was reported without accompanying statistical information, and therefore, P = .50 was entered into the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software. 38”

    From Parenting Behavior and Child Language: A Meta-analysis. (2019) · cites this paper as [38]

  • Calculations were based on a random-effects model to account for existing heterogeneity among studies.

    “Calculations were based on a random-effects model to account for existing heterogeneity among studies. 38”

    From Parenting Behavior and Child Language: A Meta-analysis. (2019) · cites this paper as [38]

  • A common problem in meta-analysis is that studies may not have been published because of non-significant or unfavorable findings (publication or file drawer bias).

    “A common problem in performing a meta‐analysis is that studies may not have been published because of non‐significant or unfavorable findings, the so called “publication or file drawer bias” (Rosenthal, 1995).”

    From Does Natural Mentoring Matter? A Multilevel Meta‐analysis on the Association Between Natural Mentoring and Youth Outcomes (2018) · cites this paper as Rosenthal, 1995

  • Low reliability has been shown to affect Type II rather than Type I error, making it less likely to observe significant results but not causing spuriously significant findings.

    “Low reliability has also been shown to affect Type II-not Type I-error, which makes it less likely to observe significant results but does not cause spuriously significant findings [50,51]”

    From Gender Differences in Coping and Psychological Adaptation during the COVID-19 Pandemic (2023) · cites this paper as [51]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rosenthal, R.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Rosenthal, Robert
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1995-09
Volume
118
Issue
2
Pages
183-192
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.183
OpenAlex
W2109747954
Cited by
1,108
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 60 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 48
FWCI
31.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • James McKeen Cattell Fund
  • Harvard University
  • Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
effect size, heterogeneity, power analysis, moderators

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