The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scientific Guidelines for Conducting Integrative Research Reviews
Abstract
The inferences made in integrative research reviews are as central to the validity of behavioral science knowledge as those made in primary research. Therefore, research reviewers must pay the same attention to rigorous methodology that is required of primary researchers. This article conceptualizes the research review as a scientific inquiry involving five stages that parallel those of primary research. The functions, sources of variance, and potential threats to validity associated with each stage are described.
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
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research
GLASS, G. V. (1976) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x005010003 · Cited by 4,890
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · Cited by 4,583
Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis.
Greenwald, A. G. (1975) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0076157 · Cited by 1,022 · cited 1×
“For instance, Greenwald (1975) found that about half of researchers who produced a rejection of the null hypothesis would submit a report for publication, while only 6 percent who failed to reject the null hypothesis would attempt to publish.”
BackgroundPublication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system
Mahoney, M. J. (1977) · Cognitive Therapy and Research · doi:10.1007/bf01173636 · Cited by 1,013
Average Values of Mean Squares in Factorials
Cornfield, J., & Tukey, J. W. (1956) · The Annals of Mathematical Statistics · doi:10.1214/aoms/1177728067 · Cited by 292
Scientific communication: Its role in the conduct of research and creation of knowledge.
Garvey, W. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1971) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0032059 · Cited by 225
Cited by
Chronic pain-associated depression: Antecedent or consequence of chronic pain? A review
Fishbain, D. A., Cutler, R., Rosomoff, H. L., & Rosomoff, R. S. (1997) · The Clinical Journal of Pain · doi:10.1097/00002508-199706000-00006 · Cited by 1,074
Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223 · Cited by 837
Social facilitation: A meta-analysis of 241 studies.
Bond, C. F., & Titus, L. J. (1983) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.94.2.265 · Cited by 684
The effects of postpartum depression on child development: A meta-analysis
Beck, C. T. (1998) · Archives of Psychiatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/s0883-9417(98)80004-6 · Cited by 558
A brief history of research synthesis
Chalmers, I., Hedges, L. V., & Cooper, H. (2002) · Evaluation & the Health Professions · doi:10.1177/0163278702025001003 · Cited by 552
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Cooper, H. M.
- Venue
- Review of Educational Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1982
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 291
- ISSN
- 0034-6543 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2115855896
- Cited by
- 784
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 23.13
- 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.
