CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 805Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference Techniquesscientometrics and bibliometrics research

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

META‐REGRESSION ANALYSIS: A QUANTITATIVE METHOD OF LITERATURE SURVEYS

Open access
Stanley, T. D., Jarrell, Stephen B.·1989·Journal of Economic Surveys
DOI 10.1111/j.1467-6419.1989.tb00064.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Abstract.Pedagogically, literature reviews are instrumental. They summarize the large literature written on a particular topic, give coherence to the complex, often disparate, views expressed about an issue, and serve as a springboard for new ideas. However, literature surveys rarely establish anything approximating unanimous consensus. Ironically, this is just as true for the empirical economic literature. To harmonize this dissonance, we offer a quantitative methodology for reviewing the empirical economic literature. Meta‐regression analysis (MRA) is the regression analysis of regression analyses. MRA tends to objectify the review process. It studies the processes that produce empirical economic results as though they were any other social scientific phenomenon. MRA provides a framework for replication and offers a sensitivity analysis for model specification. In this brief essay, we propose a new method of reviewing economic literature, MRA, and discuss its potential.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-6419.1989.tb00064.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Narrative reviews entail issues because authors might be biased due to their subjectivity, and by choosing which studies to include, how to weight them and how to interpret their results, reviewers can accommodate their prior beliefs.

    “Although widely adopted, narrative reviews entail several issues. Authors might be biased due to their subjectivity (Green et al., 2006; Stanley & Jarrell, 1989). By choosing which studies to include in the review, how to weight them and how to interpret their results, reviewers can accommodate, even unconsciously, the main findings of a particular scientific field to be com‐pliant with their pri”

    From Public sector reforms and their impact on the level of corruption: A systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as Stanley & Jarrell, 1989

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. 10.2307/3151793 · DOI
  2. Blaug M., 1980, The Methodology of Economics: Or How Economists Explain.
  3. 10.2307/3151463 · DOI
  4. Cochran W. G., 1937, Problems arising in the analysis of a series of similar experiments, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 4, 102, 10.2307/2984123 · DOI
  5. Dewald W. G., 1986, Replication in empirical economics, American Economic Review, 76, 587
  6. 10.1037/0033-2909.90.1.1 · DOI
  7. 10.1214/aos/1176344552 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1086/296148 · DOI
  9. 10.1287/mksc.1.2.181 · DOI
  10. Fisher R. A., 1932, Statistical Methods for Research Workers.
  11. Frantz R., 1985, X‐efficiency theory and its critics, Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 25, 38
  12. 10.2307/1174772 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.3102/0091732X005001351 · DOI
  14. Glass G. V., 1981, Meta‐analysis in Social Research.
  15. 10.3102/10769986006002107 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Hedges L. V., 1985, Statistical Methods for Meta‐Analysis.
  17. Jarrell S. B., 1987, Union relative wage effects: A meta‐regression analysis
  18. Jarrell S. B.andStanley T. D.(1989)A meta‐analysis of the union wage gap in review. · DOI
  19. Klamer A., 1985, Conversations with Economists.
  20. 10.2307/1924497 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/0090-5720(85)90002-6 · DOI
  22. Lewis H. G., 1986, Union Relative Wage Effects: A Survey.
  23. Maddala G. S., 1977, Econometrics.
  24. 10.2307/1911379 · DOI
  25. 10.1093/biomet/25.3-4.379 · DOI
  26. Popper K., 1945, The Open Society and Its Enemies.
  27. Popper K., 1972, Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach.
  28. Rosenthal R., 1984, Meta‐Analytic Procedures for Social Research.
  29. 10.1017/S0140525X00075506 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1037/0033-2909.92.3.581 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Smith M. L., 1980, The Benefits of Psychotherapy.
  32. 10.1016/0090-5720(86)90041-0 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/0165-1765(86)90162-X · DOI
  34. 10.1002/for.3980070203 · DOI
  35. Stanley T. D., 1989, Decision Sciences: Theory and Application, 4
  36. Winer B. J., 1971, Statistical Principles of Experimental Design.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Stanley, T. D., & Jarrell, S. B.
Affiliations
  • Hendrix College (US)
  • Western Carolina University (US)
ORCID
Stanley, T. D.
Venue
Journal of Economic Surveys
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1989-06
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
161-170
ISSN
  • 0950-0804 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-6419
DOI
10.1111/j.1467-6419.1989.tb00064.x
OpenAlex
W2122415632
Cited by
805
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 48 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 49 · 2012: 34
FWCI
2.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 6357 d)
Locations
  • Journal of Economic Surveys (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
empirical economics, replication, sensitivity analysis, model specification

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