CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and BibliometricsReliability and Agreement in Measurement

Random or Fixed? An Empirical Examination of Meta-Analysis Model Choices

Slaney, Kathleen L., Tafreshi, Donna, Hohn, Richard·2018·Review of General Psychology
DOI 10.1037/gpr0000140
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

When conducting meta-analyses, researchers must make decisions about which statistical model is most appropriate for the specific context and aims of the meta-analysis. Although there are several meta-analysis models, most researchers choose between two general models: fixed-effect (FE) and random-effects (RE). Yet, the basis on which these two general models are distinguished and of when it is appropriate to use one or the other varies in the methodological literature. Although model-to-inference inconsistencies have been previously noted, there has been little empirical investigation of whether, and to what extent, the varying conceptualizations of the distinctions between FE and RE models are reflected in published meta-analyses. The present study explores whether conceptualizations of model distinctions among psychological researchers are consistent with those in the methods literature. We also examine model choices and rationales given by psychological researchers in two samples of published meta-analyses in psychology-related journals. We identify four primary categories for distinguishing between FE and RE models, only two of which were predominant in our samples. Although model choice appears to be reported at a moderately high rate, many researchers continue not to provide explicit rationales for their model choices or do not clearly tie model choices to the specific research aims of the meta-analyses. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/gpr0000140

Cites

44 of 44 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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Slaney, K. L., Tafreshi, D., & Hohn, R.
Affiliations
Simon Fraser University (CA)
Corresponding author
Slaney, Kathleen L.
ORCID
Venue
Review of General Psychology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2018-09
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
290-304
ISSN
  • 1089-2680 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1552
DOI
10.1037/gpr0000140
OpenAlex
W2794061250
Cited by
13
References
45
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3
FWCI
1.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Review of General Psychology (publishedVersion)
Funders
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (K-435-2014-0279)
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 › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
meta-analysis, fixed effects model, random effects models, model selection, publication practices, psychology research, methodological reporting, effect size heterogeneity

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