Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 259

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

Aguinis, Herman, Pierce, Charles A., Bosco, Frank A., Dalton, Dan R., Dalton, Catherine M.·2011·Organizational Research Methods
DOI 10.1177/1094428110375720
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1094428110375720

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 259

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
DOI
10.1177/1094428110375720
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.