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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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.

Overview

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.

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

Show all 28 references

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

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. 10.2307/1174772 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.3102/10769986006002107 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Light RJ, 1983, Evaluation studies review annual
  4. Mason WM, 1984, Sociological Methodology
  5. Raudenbush SW, 1984, Applications of a hierarchical linear model in educational research
  6. Smith ML, 1980, The benefit of psychotherapy
  7. Sternio JLF, 1981, Empirical Bayes estimation for a hierarchical linear model

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–299 of 299

Metadata

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