Cited by 299Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceEducational Research and Methods

Empirical bayes meta-analysis.

Raudenbush, Stephen W., Bryk, Anthony S.·1985·Journal of Educational Statistics

Abstract

As interest in quantitative research synthesis grows, investigators increasingly seek to use information about study features—study contexts, designs, treatments, and subjects—to account for variation in study outcomes. To facilitate analysis of diverse study findings, a mixed linear model with fixed and random effects is presented and illustrated with data from teacher expectancy experiments. This strategy enables the analyst to (a) estimate the variance of the effect size parameters by means of maximum likelihood; (b) pose a series of linear models to explain the effect parameter variance; (c) use information about study characteristics to derive improved empirical Bayes estimates of individual study effect sizes; and (d) examine the sensitivity of all substantive inferences to likely errors in the estimation of variance components.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/10769986010002075

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Raudenbush and Bryk (1985) have recommended that the use of hierarchical linear modeling may be more optimal to account for the nesting of studies within a meta-analysis and this would improve the fidelity of the estimation.

    “Raudenbush and Bryk (1985) have recommended that the use of hierarchical linear modeling may be more optimal to account for the nesting of studies within a meta-analysis and this would improve the fidelity of the estimation.”

    From The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research (2020) · cites this paper as Raudenbush and Bryk, 1985

  • A single parameter cannot adequately summarize heterogeneous effects, so focusing on the mean effect alone is usually insufficient.

    “However, a single parameter cannot adequately summarize heterogeneous effects (Raudenbush and Bryk, 1985) and so focusing on μ alone is usually insufficient.”

    From A Re-Evaluation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis (2009) · cites this paper as Raudenbush and Bryk, 1985

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S.
Affiliations
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
Venue
Journal of Educational Statistics
Published
1985-06
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
75-98
ISSN
0362-9791 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2043466393
Cited by
299
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 14
FWCI
8.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Educational Statistics (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Spencer Foundation
  • Harvard University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
Keywords
empirical Bayes, meta-analysis, linear mixed models, random effects, effect size heterogeneity, study characteristics, teacher expectations, variance component estimation, sensitivity analysis

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