The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Best-Evidence Synthesis: An Alternative to Meta-Analytic and Traditional Reviews
Abstract
This paper proposes an alternative to both meta-analytic and traditional reviews. The method, “best-evidence synthesis,” combines the quantification of effect sizes and systematic study selection procedures of quantitative syntheses with the attention to individual studies and methodological and substantive issues typical of the best narrative reviews. Best-evidence syntheses focus on the “best evidence” in a field, the studies highest in internal and external validity, using well-specified and defended a priori inclusion criteria, and use effect size data as an adjunct to a full discussion of the literature being reviewed.
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
Distribution Theory for Glass's Estimator of Effect Size and Related Estimators
Hedges, L. V. (1981) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164588 · Cited by 5,695
Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research
GLASS, G. V. (1976) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x005010003 · Cited by 4,890
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again
Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00011183 · Cited by 1,079 · cited 1×
“Certainly, studies of interjudge consistency in evaluations of journal articles (e.g., Gottfredson, 1978; Marsh & Ball, 1981; Peters & Ceci, 1982; Scarr & Weber, 1978) show considerable variation from reviewer to reviewer, so global decisions about methodological quality are inappropriate as a…”
BackgroundDRUG TREATMENT OF HYPERACTIVITY IN CHILDREN
Ottenbacher, K. J., & Cooper, H. M. (1983) · Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology · doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.1983.tb13772.x · Cited by 73
Cited by
Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform
Shulman, L. (1987) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411 · Cited by 16,787
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375 · Cited by 15,386
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Deeks, J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7270 · Cited by 2,907
Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.
Peters, J. L. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.6.676 · Cited by 2,278
A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement
Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., Tipton, E., Schneider, B., Hulleman, C. S., Hinojosa, C. P., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y · Cited by 1,513
Metadata
- Authors
- Slavin, R. E.
- Venue
- Educational Researcher
- Published
- 1986-11
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 5
- ISSN
- 0013-189X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2156812830
- Cited by
- 698
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 20.02
- 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.
