The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Debunking Myths and Urban Legends About Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Meta-analysis is the dominant approach to research synthesis in the organizational sciences. We discuss seven meta-analytic practices, misconceptions, claims, and assumptions that have reached the status of myths and urban legends (MULs). These seven MULs include issues related to data collection (e.g., consequences of choices made in the process of gathering primary-level studies to be included in a meta-analysis), data analysis (e.g., effects of meta-analytic choices and technical refinements on substantive conclusions and recommendations for practice), and the interpretation of results (e.g., meta-analytic inferences about causal relationships). We provide a critical analysis of each of these seven MULs, including a discussion of why each merits being classified as an MUL, their kernels of truth value, and what part of each MUL represents misunderstanding. As a consequence of discussing each of these seven MULs, we offer best-practice recommendations regarding how to conduct meta-analytic reviews.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
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
Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015) · doi:10.4135/9781483398105 · Cited by 5,542
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553
Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006) · doi:10.1002/9780470754887 · Cited by 3,586
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004) · doi:10.4135/9781412985031 · Cited by 3,023
Cited by
How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 · Cited by 14,329
Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428114562629 · Cited by 7,495
Narcissism and Leadership: A Meta‐Analytic Review of Linear and Nonlinear Relationships
Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12072 · Cited by 572
Mathieu, J. E., Kukenberger, M. R., D'Innocenzo, L., & Reilly, G. (2015) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0038898 · Cited by 316
Aguinis, H., Dalton, D. R., Bosco, F. A., Pierce, C. A., & Dalton, C. M. (2011) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206310377113 · Cited by 302
Self-citationKlarin, A. (2024) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.13031 · Cited by 292
Meta-analysis using effect size distributions of only statistically significant studies.
van Assen, M. A. L. M., van Aert, R. C. M., & Wicherts, J. M. (2015) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/met0000025 · Cited by 265
How to conduct a meta-analysis in eight steps: A practical guide
Hansen, C., Steinmetz, H., & Block, J. (2022) · Management Review Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11301-021-00247-4 · Cited by 218
Performance, incentives, and needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness: A meta-analysis
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Nassrelgrgawi, A. S. (2016) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/s11031-016-9578-2 · Cited by 202
It’s about time: New perspectives and insights on time management
Aeon, B., & Aguinis, H. (2017) · Academy of Management Perspectives · doi:10.5465/amp.2016.0166 · Cited by 197
Self-citationZhang, Y., Liu, X., Xu, S., Yang, L.-Q., & Bednall, T. C. (2019) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206318823935 · Cited by 183
A meta‐analysis of the effects of electronic performance monitoring on work outcomes
Ravid, D. M., White, J. C., Tomczak, D. L., Miles, A. F., & Behrend, T. S. (2023) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12514 · Cited by 159
Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Confidence Intervals for Rosenthal’s Fail-Safe Number
Fragkos, K. C., Tsagris, M., & Frangos, C. C. (2014) · International Scholarly Research Notices · doi:10.1155/2014/825383 · Cited by 159
Grossman, R., Nolan, K., Rosch, Z., Mazer, D., & Salas, E. (2022) · Organizational Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/20413866211041157 · Cited by 133
More Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends
Lance, C. E. (2011) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428110391814 · Cited by 88
A hybrid framework for creating artificial intelligence-augmented systematic literature reviews
Malik, F. S., & Terzidis, O. (2026) · Management Review Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11301-025-00522-8 · Cited by 28
A reinforcement sensitivity theory view of seeking behaviors at work: A meta‐analysis
Sherf, E. N., Gilliam, N., & McElroy, T. (2024) · Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1111/peps.12579 · Cited by 15
Mackey, J. D. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.03.002 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Aguinis, H., Pierce, C. A., Bosco, F. A., Dalton, D. R., & Dalton, C. M.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-08-04
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 306-331
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W2096245798
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 37
- FWCI
- 12.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
