CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 359Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Epidemiologyscientometrics and bibliometrics research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Modeling Publication Selection Effects in Meta-Analysis

Open access
Hedges, Larry V.·1992·Statistical Science
DOI 10.1214/ss/1177011364
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Publication selection effects arise in meta-analysis when the effect magnitude estimates are observed in (available from) only a subset of the studies that were actually conducted and the probability that an estimate is observed is related to the size of that estimate. Such selection effects can lead to substantial bias in estimates of effect magnitude. Research on the selection process suggests that much of the selection occurs because researchers, reviewers and editors view the results of studies as more conclusive when they are more highly statistically significant. This suggests a model of the selection process that depends on effect magnitude via the p-value or significance level. A model of the selection process involving a step function relating the p-value to the probability of selection is introduced in the context of a random effects model for meta-analysis. The model permits estimation of a weight function representing selection along the mean and variance of effects. Some ideas for graphical procedures and a test for publication selection are also introduced. The method is then applied to a meta-analysis of test validity studies.

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 · 10.1214/ss/1177011364

Cites

34 of 34 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

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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. CHAmPNEY, T. F. (1983). Adjustments for selection: Publication bias in quantitative research synthesis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. Chicago.
  2. CoopER, H. M. (1984). The Integrative Research Review. Sage, Beverly Hills.
  3. HeDGEs, L. V. (1984). Estimation of effect size under nonrandom sampling: The effects of censoring studies yielding statistically insignificant mean differences. Journal of Educational Statistics 9 61–85.
  4. MELToN, A. W. (1962). Editorial. Journal of Experimental Psychology 64 553–557.
  5. WHITE, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and achievement. Psychological Bulletin 91 461-481.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 359

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hedges, L. V.
Corresponding author
Hedges, Larry V.
ORCID
Hedges, Larry V.
Venue
Statistical Science
Publisher
Institute of Mathematical Statistics
Published
1992-05-01
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
246-255
ISSN
  • 0883-4237 (ISSN-L)
  • 2168-8745
DOI
10.1214/ss/1177011364
OpenAlex
W2087875612
Cited by
359
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 11
FWCI
10.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistical Science (publishedVersion)
  • Project Euclid (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
publication bias, meta-analysis, p-values, significance level, selection probability, random effects models, weight functions, test validity, graphical procedure

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