CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 161Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and BibliometricsReliability and Agreement in Measurement

USING RANDOM RATHER THAN FIXED EFFECTS MODELS IN META‐ANALYSIS: IMPLICATIONS FOR SITUATIONAL SPECIFICITY AND VALIDITY GENERALIZATION

EREZ, AMIR, BLOOM, MATTHEW C., WELLS, MARTIN T·1996·Personnel Psychology
DOI 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01801.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Combining statistical information across studies (i.e., meta‐analysis) is a standard research tool in applied psychology. The most common meta‐analytic approach in applied psychology, the fixed effects approach, assumes that individual studies are homogeneous and are sampled from the same population. This model assumes that sampling error alone explains the majority of observed differences in study effect sizes and its use has lead some to challenge the notion of situational specificity in favor of validity generalization. We critique the fixed effects methodology and propose an advancement–the random effects model (RE) which provides estimates of how between‐study differences influence the relationships under study. RE models assume that studies are heterogeneous since they are often conducted by different investigators under different settings. Parameter estimates of both models are compared and evidence in favor of the random effects approach is presented. We argue against use of the fixed effects model because it may lead to misleading conclusions about situational specificity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01801.x

Cites

46 of 46 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?

  • Using a random-effects model in all analyses gives the review's results greater generalisability than a fixed-effect model would.

    “By using the random-effects model in all analyses, our results possess greater generalisability than if we had used the fixed-effect model (Erez 1996).”

    From Interventions for self-harm in children and adolescents (2021) · cites this paper as Erez 1996

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
EREZ, A., BLOOM, M. C., & WELLS, M. T.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Personnel Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1996-06
Volume
49
Issue
2
Pages
275-306
ISSN
  • 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-6570
DOI
10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01801.x
OpenAlex
W2051711058
Cited by
161
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
FWCI
6.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 3841 d)
Locations
Personnel Psychology (publishedVersion)
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
random effects models, fixed effects model, meta-analysis methodology, situational specificity, validity generalization, study heterogeneity, sampling error, effect size estimation, applied psychology research

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