CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 131

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sample Sizes and Effect Sizes are Negatively Correlated in Meta-Analyses: Evidence and Implications of a Publication Bias Against NonSignificant Findings

Levine, Timothy R., Asada, Kelli J., Carpenter, Chris·2009·Communication Monographs
DOI 10.1080/03637750903074685
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Meta-analysis involves cumulating effects across studies in order to qualitatively summarize existing literatures. A recent finding suggests that the effect sizes reported in meta-analyses may be negatively correlated with study sample sizes. This prediction was tested with a sample of 51 published meta-analyses summarizing the results of 3,602 individual studies. The correlation between effect size and sample size was negative in almost 80 percent of the meta-analyses examined, and the negative correlation was not limited to a particular type of research or substantive area. This result most likely stems from a bias against publishing findings that are not statistically significant. The primary implication is that meta-analyses may systematically overestimate population effect sizes. It is recommended that researchers routinely examine the n–r scatter plot and correlation, or some other indication of publication bias and report this information in meta-analyses.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03637750903074685

Cites

18 of 18 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

Show all 18 references

Research works printed but not linked: 69

  1. Abelson R. P., 1995, Statistics as principled argument
  2. Allen M., 1998, Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis
  3. 10.1080/03634528909378740 · DOI
  4. Allen , M. Preiss , R. W. Gayle , B. M. and Burrell , N. A. 2002. Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis , 263–279. Mahwah, NJ: LEA. · DOI
  5. Begg C. B., 1994, The Handbook of Research Synthesis, 399
  6. 10.2307/2533446 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00818.x · DOI
  8. Callaham M. L., 2008, Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 254, 10.1001/jama.280.3.254 · DOI
  9. Dickersin K., 2005, Publication Bias in Meta Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments, 12
  10. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1177/0049124108318973 · DOI
  12. Hunter J., 1990, Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings
  13. 10.1177/0013164405278585 · DOI
  14. 10.1080/03634520410001693148 · DOI
  15. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00318.x · DOI
  16. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00317.x · DOI
  17. Light R., 1984, Summing up: The science of reviewing research, 10.4159/9780674040243 · DOI
  18. Littner Y., 2005, Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 159, 1036, 10.1001/archpedi.159.11.1036 · DOI
  19. Meehl P. E., 1986, Meta-Theory in Social Science, 315
  20. 10.1086/303223 · DOI
  21. 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Scargle J. D., 1999, The “file-drawer” problem in scientific inference
  23. Sterne J. A. C., 2005, Publication Bias in Meta Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments, 75
  24. 10.1080/08934219809367684 · DOI
  25. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995.tb00368.x · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1080/00224499609551825 · DOI
  27. Allen M., 2002, Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis, 263
  28. 10.1080/03634528909378740 · DOI
  29. 10.1080/08824099709388654 · DOI
  30. Beck R., 1998, Cognitive Therapy and Research, 23, 63, 10.1023/A:1018763902991 · DOI
  31. Benoit W. L., 1998, Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis, 139
  32. 10.1080/0363775032000179133 · DOI
  33. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1997)23:6<447::AID-AB4>3.0.CO;2-D · DOI
  34. Burrell N. A., 1998, Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis, 203
  35. 10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.760 · DOI
  36. Cruz M. G., 1998, Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis, 217
  37. 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0801_1 · DOI
  38. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1984.tb00028.x · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.1080/08934210409389369 · DOI
  40. 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_02 · DOI
  41. Gayle B. M., 1998, Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis, 189
  42. 10.1207/s15327957pspr0203_3 · DOI
  43. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.t01-1-00298.x · DOI
  44. 10.1023/A:1025608105284 · DOI
  45. Hamilton M. A., 1998, Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis, 99
  46. Hamilton M. A., 2002, Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis, 281
  47. 10.1177/009365098025002005 · DOI
  48. 10.1037/0022-006X.67.4.563 · DOI · Paper page
  49. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00054.x · DOI
  50. 10.1002/1099-1379(200012)21:8<913::AID-JOB62>3.0.CO;2-# · DOI
  51. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01251.x · DOI
  52. 10.1177/009365093020003001 · DOI
  53. 10.1002/ab.80011 · DOI
  54. 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.139 · DOI
  55. 10.1080/03634520410001693148 · DOI
  56. 10.1111/1475-6811.00035 · DOI
  57. 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00837.x · DOI
  58. 10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.670 · DOI
  59. 10.1023/A:1025639609402 · DOI
  60. 10.1023/A:1020488928736 · DOI
  61. Preiss R. W., 1998, Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis, 241
  62. 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0601_2 · DOI
  63. 10.1023/A:1022117500440 · DOI
  64. 10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.363 · DOI
  65. Schutz H., 1996, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 441, 10.1016/0147-1767(96)00028-4 · DOI
  66. 10.1086/209170 · DOI · Paper page
  67. 10.1093/hcr/27.3.409 · DOI
  68. Timmerman L. M., 2002, Interpersonal communication research: Advances through meta-analysis, 73
  69. Whitely B. E., 1999, Sex Roles, 41, 657, 10.1023/A:1018863909149 · DOI

Cited by

See all 131

Metadata

Authors
Levine, T. R., Asada, K. J., & Carpenter, C.
Venue
Communication Monographs
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2009-08-11
Volume
76
Issue
3
Pages
286-302
ISSN
  • 0363-7751
  • 1479-5787
DOI
10.1080/03637750903074685
Cited by
131
References
18
Language
en

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sample Sizes and Effect Sizes are Negatively Correlated in Meta-Analyses: Evidence and Implications of a Publication Bias Against NonSignificant Findings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/03637750903074685
The paper
Levine, T. R., Asada, K. J., & Carpenter, C. (2009). Sample Sizes and Effect Sizes are Negatively Correlated in Meta-Analyses: Evidence and Implications of a Publication Bias Against NonSignificant Findings. Communication Monographs. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903074685