CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 93Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsEducational Research and MethodsEvaluation and Performance Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Numbers and Narrative: Combining Their Strengths in Research Reviews

Light, Richard, Pillemer, David·1982·Harvard Educational Review
DOI 10.17763/haer.52.1.0114v8756m170618
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

When several independent research studies examine the same program or treatment,conflicting findings often result, making it difficult to draw overall conclusions. Recent methodological work has created procedures, sometimes called meta-analysis, for combining quantitative results across studies. In this article, Richard Light and David Pillemer argue that qualitative information is equally important for explaining conflicting or puzzling outcomes. They discuss six ways in which qualitative information is essential to the process of literature review. The authors outline three broad strategies for combining different types of information in a review: quantifying descriptive reports, presenting quantitative outcomes narratively, and allying statistical and descriptive evidence while maintaining the integrity of each. They suggest that reviews organized to ally both forms of information will ultimately maximize our knowledge about the complexities of program success.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.17763/haer.52.1.0114v8756m170618

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Pillemer, D. B., & Light, R. J. Benefiting from variation in study outcomes. New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science, 1980, 5, 1-12. (a)
  2. Quinn, K. V., & Durling, D. New experiment in glutamic acid therapy: 24 cases classified as mental deficiency, undifferentiated, treated with glutamic acid for six months. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1950, 55, 227-234. (a)
  3. Selvidge, J. Assigning probabilities to rare events. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1972.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Light, R., & Pillemer, D.
ORCID
Pillemer, David
Venue
Harvard Educational Review
Publisher
Harvard Education Publishing Group
Published
1982-04-01
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
1-26
ISSN
  • 0017-8055 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-5045
DOI
10.17763/haer.52.1.0114v8756m170618
OpenAlex
W1817236189
Cited by
93
References
54
Citations by year
2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3
FWCI
8.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Harvard Educational Review (publishedVersion)
  • University of New Hampshire Scholars Repository (University of New Hampshire at Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
Keywords
meta-analysis, qualitative data, program evaluation, program success

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