CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 263Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 110 of the 113 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 3 are not checked yet.

Meta-analytic structural equation modeling with moderating effects on SEM parameters.

Open access
Jak, Suzanne, Cheung, Mike W. -L.·2020·Psychological Methods
DOI 10.1037/met0000245
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) is an increasingly popular meta-analytic technique that combines the strengths of meta-analysis and structural equation modeling. MASEM facilitates the evaluation of complete theoretical models (e.g., path models or factor analytic models), accounts for sampling covariance between effect sizes, and provides measures of overall fit of the hypothesized model on meta-analytic data. We propose a novel MASEM method, one-stage MASEM, which is better suitable to explain study-level heterogeneity than existing methods. One-stage MASEM allows researchers to incorporate continuous or categorical moderators into the MASEM, in which any parameter in the structural equation model (e.g., path coefficients and factor loadings) can be modeled by the moderator variable, while the method does not require complete data for the primary studies included in the meta-analysis. We illustrate the new method on two real data sets, evaluate its empirical performance via a computer simulation study, and provide user-friendly R-functions and annotated syntax to assist researchers in applying one-stage MASEM. We close the article by presenting several future research directions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Overview

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/met0000245

Cites

110 of 113 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 108 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Becker, B. J. (2009). Model-based meta-analysis. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 377-395). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
  2. Cooper, H. M. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by- step approach (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
  3. Olkin, I., & Siotani, M. (1976). Asymptotic distribution of functions of a correlation matrix. In S. Ideka (Ed.), Essays in probability and statistics (pp. 235-251). Tokyo, Japan: Shinko Tsusho.
  4. Pigott, T. D. (2009). Handling missing data. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 399 -416). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–263 of 263

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Jak, S., & Cheung, M. W. L.
Affiliations
National University of Singapore (SG)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Methods
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2020-08
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
430-455
ISSN
  • 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1463
DOI
10.1037/met0000245
OpenAlex
W2947143056
Cited by
262
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 9
FWCI
11.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Psychological Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (451-16-001)
  • Ministry of Education (FY2017-FRC1-008)
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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
meta-analytic structural equation modeling, moderating effect, model fit, path coefficients, factor loadings, R functions
MeSH terms
Latent Class Analysis, Computer Simulation, Humans, Psychology, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Models, Statistical

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