Methodological and Reporting Errors in Meta-Analytic Reviews Make Other Meta-Analysts Angry: A Commentary on Ferguson (2015)
Abstract
Although Ferguson’s (2015, this issue) meta-analysis addresses an important topic, we have serious concerns about how it was conducted. Because there was only one coder, we have no confidence in the reliability or validity of the coded variables. Two independent raters should have coded the studies. Ferguson synthesized partial correlations as if they were zero-order correlations, which can increase or decrease (sometimes substantially) the variance of the partial correlation. Moreover, he partialled different numbers of variables from different effects, partialled different variables from different studies, and did not report what was partialled from each study. Ferguson used an idiosyncratic “tandem procedure” for detecting publication bias. He also “corrected” his results for publication bias, even though there is no such thing as a “correction” for publication bias. Thus, we believe that Ferguson’s meta-analysis is fatally flawed and should not have been accepted for publication in Perspective on Psychological Science (or any other journal).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
The fail-safe number (4774) is much larger than 185 (5k+10), indicating little possibility of publication bias.
“The fail-safe number of this meta-analysis was 4774, which is much larger than 185, that is, the result obtained according to formula 5 k + 10, which also indicates that there is little possibility of publication bias in this study.”
From The causal relationship between digital literacy and students’ academic achievement: a meta-analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Rothstein and Bushman, 2015
Cites
Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., Rothstein, H. R., & Saleem, M. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0018251 · Cited by 2,048 · see citing works
Self-citationFerguson, C. J. (2015) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691615592234 · Cited by 524 · cited 1× · see citing works
“edu Methodological and Reporting Errors in Meta-Analytic Reviews Make Other Meta-Analysts Angry: A Commentary on Ferguson (2015)”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Are Social Media Ruining Our Lives? A Review of Meta-Analytic Evidence
Appel, M., Marker, C., & Gnambs, T. (2020) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1177/1089268019880891 · Cited by 290 · see citing works
A meta-analysis of virtual reality training programs for social skill development
Howard, M. C., & Gutworth, M. B. (2020) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103707 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
Screen media use and ADHD-related behaviors: Four decades of research
Beyens, I., Valkenburg, P. M., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1611611114 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
The causal relationship between digital literacy and students’ academic achievement: a meta-analysis
Li, F., Cheng, L., Wang, X., Shen, L., Ma, Y., & Islam, A. Y. M. A. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-04399-6 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
“The original number of studies included in the meta-analysis is indicated by k (Rothstein and Bushman, 2015).”
Sanduvete-Chaves, S., Chacón-Moscoso, S., & Cano-García, F. J. (2024) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2024.111888 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Rothstein, H. R., & Bushman, B. J.
- Affiliations
- Baruch College (US)
- The Ohio State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rothstein, Hannah R.
- Venue
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-09
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 677-679
- ISSN
- 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6924
- OpenAlex
- W2348118825
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 4.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- error reporting, partial correlation, rater reliability, meta-analysis critique
- MeSH terms
- Anger, Emotions, Humans, Publishing, Reproducibility of Results, Publication Bias
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
