CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 156Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and BibliometricsReliability and Agreement in Measurement

A meta-meta-analysis: Empirical review of statistical power, type I error rates, effect sizes, and model selection of meta-analyses published in psychology

Cafri, Guy, Kromrey, Jeffrey D., Brannick, Michael T.·2010·Multivariate Behavioral Research
DOI 10.1080/00273171003680187
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article uses meta-analyses published in Psychological Bulletin from 1995 to 2005 to describe meta-analyses in psychology, including examination of statistical power, Type I errors resulting from multiple comparisons, and model choice. Retrospective power estimates indicated that univariate categorical and continuous moderators, individual moderators in multivariate analyses, and tests of residual variability within individual levels of categorical moderators had the lowest and most concerning levels of power. Using methods of calculating power prospectively for significance tests in meta-analysis, we illustrate how power varies as a function of the number of effect sizes, the average sample size per effect size, effect size magnitude, and level of heterogeneity of effect sizes. In most meta-analyses many significance tests were conducted, resulting in a sizable estimated probability of a Type I error, particularly for tests of means within levels of a moderator, univariate categorical moderators, and residual variability within individual levels of a moderator. Across all surveyed studies, the median effect size and the median difference between two levels of study level moderators were smaller than Cohen's (1988) conventions for a medium effect size for a correlation or difference between two correlations. The median Birge's (1932) ratio was larger than the convention of medium heterogeneity proposed by Hedges and Pigott (2001) and indicates that the typical meta-analysis shows variability in underlying effects well beyond that expected by sampling error alone. Fixed-effects models were used with greater frequency than random-effects models; however, random-effects models were used with increased frequency over time. Results related to model selection of this study are carefully compared with those from Schmidt, Oh, and Hayes (2009), who independently designed and produced a study similar to the one reported here. Recommendations for conducting future meta-analyses in light of the findings are provided.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00273171003680187

Cites

169 of 169 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cafri, G., Kromrey, J. D., & Brannick, M. T.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • University of South Florida
ORCID
Cafri, Guy
Venue
Multivariate Behavioral Research
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2010-03-31
Volume
45
Issue
2
Pages
239-270
ISSN
  • 0027-3171 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7906
DOI
10.1080/00273171003680187
OpenAlex
W2069978343
Cited by
156
References
169
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
4.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Multivariate Behavioral Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
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, statistical power, type I error, multiple comparisons, effect size, heterogeneity, model selection, fixed effects model, random effects models, 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