The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Mini Meta‐Analysis of Your Own Studies: Some Arguments on Why and a Primer on How
Abstract
We outline the need to, and provide a guide on how to, conduct a meta‐analysis on one's own studies within a manuscript. Although conducting a “mini meta” within one's manuscript has been argued for in the past, this practice is still relatively rare and adoption is slow. We believe two deterrents are responsible. First, researchers may not think that it is legitimate to do a meta‐analysis on a small number of studies. Second, researchers may think a meta‐analysis is too complicated to do without expert knowledge or guidance. We dispel these two misconceptions by (1) offering arguments on why researchers should be encouraged to do mini metas, (2) citing previous articles that have conducted such analyses to good effect, and (3) providing a user‐friendly guide on calculating some meta‐analytic procedures that are appropriate when there are only a few studies. We provide formulas for calculating effect sizes and converting effect sizes from one metric to another (e.g., from Cohen's d to r ), as well as annotated Excel spreadsheets and a step‐by‐step guide on how to conduct a simple meta‐analysis. A series of related studies can be strengthened and better understood if accompanied by a mini meta‐analysis.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Publication bias could not be tested because of the small number of included studies [30].”
From The Relationship Between Forward Head Posture and Neck Pain: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as [30]
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Lakens, D. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863 · Cited by 10,303
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
(2000) · Cited by 9,198
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068 · cited 1×
“…critiques over the years (Cumming, 2014), and by limiting a paper to only significant findings, researchers will inevitably contribute to an unhealthy culture of questionable research practices such as p-hacking (Simonsohn, Nelson, & Simmons, 2014), file-drawer effects (Rosenthal, 1979), and more.”
BackgroundSelf-citationCohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771
A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.12 · Cited by 6,793
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Borenstein M., 2005, Comprehensive Meta‐analysis (version 3)
- Lai C. K., Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: II
- Mosteller F. M., 1954, Handbook of Social Psychology: Volume I. Theory and Method
- Rosenthal R., 2008, Essentials of Behavioral Research
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Meta-analysis of pro-environmental behaviour spillover
Maki, A., Carrico, A. R., Raimi, K. T., Truelove, H. B., Araujo, B., & Yeung, K. L. (2019) · Nature Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0263-9 · Cited by 416
Melnyk, B. M., Kelly, S. A., Stephens, J., Dhakal, K., McGovern, C., Tucker, S., Hoying, J., McRae, K., Ault, S., Spurlock, E., et al. (2020) · American Journal of Health Promotion · doi:10.1177/0890117120920451 · Cited by 364
The Relationship Between Forward Head Posture and Neck Pain: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Mahmoud, N. F., Hassan, K. A., Abdelmajeed, S. F., Moustafa, I. M., & Silva, A. G. (2019) · Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12178-019-09594-y · Cited by 360
Racial bias in judgments of physical size and formidability: From size to threat.
Wilson, J. P., Hugenberg, K., & Rule, N. O. (2017) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/pspi0000092 · Cited by 364
Effective strategies for rebutting science denialism in public discussions
Schmid, P., & Betsch, C. (2019) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0632-4 · Cited by 264
Metadata
- Authors
- Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R.
- Affiliations
- Northeastern University (US)
- University of California, Riverside (US)
- Corresponding author
- Goh, Jin X.
- Venue
- Social and Personality Psychology Compass
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-10
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 535-549
- ISSN
- 1751-9004 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2527755291
- Cited by
- 994
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 55 · 2025: 110 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 128 · 2022: 121 · 2021: 132 · 2020: 121 · 2019: 100 · 2018: 86 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 74.11
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social and Personality Psychology Compass (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 › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- effect size estimation
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
