CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 176Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 116 of the 117 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A model for integrating fixed-, random-, and mixed-effects meta-analyses into structural equation modeling.

Cheung, Mike W.-L.·2008·Psychological Methods
DOI 10.1037/a0013163
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Meta-analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM) are two important statistical methods in the behavioral, social, and medical sciences. They are generally treated as two unrelated topics in the literature. The present article proposes a model to integrate fixed-, random-, and mixed-effects meta-analyses into the SEM framework. By applying an appropriate transformation on the data, studies in a meta-analysis can be analyzed as subjects in a structural equation model. This article also highlights some practical benefits of using the SEM approach to conduct a meta-analysis. Specifically, the SEM-based meta-analysis can be used to handle missing covariates, to quantify the heterogeneity of effect sizes, and to address the heterogeneity of effect sizes with mixture models. Examples are used to illustrate the equivalence between the conventional meta-analysis and the SEM-based meta-analysis. Future directions on and issues related to the SEM-based meta-analysis are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0013163

Cites

116 of 116 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

Show all 117 references

1 of the 117 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–176 of 176

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Cheung, M. W.-L.
Affiliations
National University of Singapore (SG)
Corresponding author
Cheung, Mike W.-L.
ORCID
Cheung, Mike W.-L.
Venue
Psychological Methods
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2008
Volume
13
Issue
3
Pages
182-202
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
DOI
10.1037/a0013163
OpenAlex
W2102695454
Cited by
175
References
117
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 10
FWCI
6.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
Funders
Ministry of Education (R-581-000-064-112)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
structural equation modeling, fixed-effects meta-analysis, random-effects meta-analysis, effect size heterogeneity, mixture models, missing covariates, data transformation
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Psychological, Meta-Analysis as Topic

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