Cited by 867Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferencePsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets

Open access
Curran, Patrick J., Hussong, Andrea M.·2009·Psychological Methods

Abstract

There are both quantitative and methodological techniques that foster the development and maintenance of a cumulative knowledge base within the psychological sciences. Most noteworthy of these techniques is meta-analysis, which allows for the synthesis of summary statistics drawn from multiple studies when the original data are not available. However, when the original data can be obtained from multiple studies, many advantages stem from the statistical analysis of the pooled data. The authors define integrative data analysis (IDA) as the analysis of multiple data sets that have been pooled into one. Although variants of IDA have been incorporated into other scientific disciplines, the use of these techniques is much less evident in psychology. In this article the authors present an overview of IDA as it may be applied within the psychological sciences, discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of IDA, describe analytic strategies for analyzing pooled individual data, and offer recommendations for the use of IDA in practice.

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 · 10.1037/a0015914

Cites

115 of 115 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Cochran WG Sampling Techniques 1977 Third Edition NY John Wiley & Sons
  2. Doherty M Probability versus non-probability sampling in sample surveys The New Zealand Statistics Review, March 1994 21 28

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Curran, P. J., & Hussong, A. M.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
Psychological Methods
Published
2009
Volume
14
Issue
2
Pages
81-100
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
OpenAlex
W2072327382
Cited by
867
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 61 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 95 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 95 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 80 · 2019: 61 · 2018: 51 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 21
FWCI
17.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA013148, DA15398)
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 › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
integrative data analysis, pooled analysis, multiple data sets, meta-analysis, analytical strategies, evidence synthesis
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Research, Research Design, 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