Meta-analysis represents a technique with almost limitless potential to improve the practice ofpersons in the health professions. However, the technique is not without limitations that deserve careful consideration when going over any meta-analyticfinding. The essayprovides some perspectives on the possible uses of meta-analyses and standards that permit the evaluation of the worth of any particular meta-analysis. As with primary research, the meta-analytic reviewer must make a decision, and the consumer (reader) must evaluate those choices. This article offers an exploration of those choices and some of the potential consequences of those choices.
References
1.
Allen, M.
, Emmers, T., Gebhardt, L., & Giery, M. (1995). Pornography and rape myth acceptance. Journal of Communication, 45(1), 5-26.
2.
Allen, M.
, Hunter, J. E., & Donohue, W. A. (1989). Meta-analysis of self-report data on the effectiveness of public speaking anxiety treatment techniques. Communication Education, 38,54-76.
3.
Allen, M.
, & Preiss, R. (1993). Replication and meta-analysis: A necessary connection. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 9-20.
4.
Allen, M.
, & Preiss, R. W. (1990). Using meta-analysis to evaluate curriculum: An examination of selected college textbooks. Communication Education, 39, 103-116.
5.
Altman, L.
(1991, May 7). Textbooks fall behind advances in medicine. New York Times, p. 7-7.
6.
Bangert-Drowns, R. L.
(1986). Review of developments in meta-analytic method. Psychological Bulletin, 99,388-399.
7.
Bullock, R. J.
, & Svyantek, D. J. (1985). Analyzing meta-analysis: Potential problems, and unsuccessful replication, and evaluation criteria. Applied Psychology, 70, 108-115.
8.
Chalmers, T.
, & Keirse, M. (Eds.). (1989). Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
Cook, D.
, Guyatt, G., Ryan, G., Clifton, J., Buckingham, L., Willan, A., McIlroy, W., & Oxman, A. (1993). Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. Journal of the American Medical Association, 269, 2749-2753.
10.
Cook, T.
, Cooper, H., Corday, D., Hartmann, H., Hedges, L., Light, R., Louis, T., & Mosteller, F. (Eds.). (1992). Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook. New York: Russell Sage.
11.
Cook, T.
, & Leviton, C. (1980). Reviewing the literature: A comparison of traditional methods with meta-analysis. Journal of Personality, 48, 449-472.
12.
Cooper, H.
(1982). Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative literature reviews. Review of Educational Research, S2, 291-302.
13.
Cooper, H.
, & Hedges, L. (Eds.). (1994). The handbookof research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage.
14.
Cooper, H. M.
, & Rosenthal, R. (1980). Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 87,442-449.
15.
Coursol, A.
, & Wagner, E. E. (1986). Effect of positive findings on submission and acceptance rates: A note on meta-analysis bias. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 17, 136-167.
16.
Dillard, J. P.
, Hunter, J. E., & Burgoon, M. (1984). Sequential-request persuasive strategies: Meta-analysis of foot-in-the-door and door-in-the-face. Human Communication Research, 10,461-488.
17.
Eysenck, J. J.
(1984). Meta-analysis: An abuse of research integration. Journal of Special Education, 18,41-59.
18.
Glass, G. V.
(1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5,3-8.
19.
Glass, G. V.
(1977). Integrating findings: Meta-analysis of research. Review of Research in Education, 5, 16-18.
20.
Glass, G. V.
(1983). Synthesizing empirical research: Meta-analysis. In S. A. Ward & L. J. Reed (Eds.), Knowledge structure and use: Implications for synthesis and interpretation (pp. 399-421). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
21.
Glass, G. V.
, McGaw, B., & Smith, M. G. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
22.
Greenwald, A. G.
(1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 1-20.
23.
Guskin, S. L.
(1984). Problems and promises of meta-analysis in special education. Journal of Special Education, 18, 73-80.
24.
Hattie, J. A.
, & Hansford, B. C. (1984). Meta-analysis: A reflection on problems. Australian Journal of Psychology, 26, 239-254.
25.
Hedges, L.
(1986). Arandom effects model foreffect sizes. PsychologicalBulletin, 93,388-395.
26.
Hedges, L. V.
, & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methodsformeta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.
27.
Hunter, J. E.
, & Schmidt, F. (1990). Methods for meta-analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
Hunter, J. E.
, Schmidt, F.L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982).Meta-analysis: Cumulatingfindings across research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
29.
Jackson, G. B.
(1980). Methods for integrative reviews. Review of Educational Research, 50, 438-460.
30.
Jackson, S.
, O'Keefe, D. J., Jacobs, S., & Brashers, D. E. (1989). Messages as replications toward a message-centered design strategy. Communication Monographs, 56, 364-384.
31.
Johnson, B.
, Mullen, B., & Salas, E. (1995). Comparison of three major meta-analytic approaches. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 94-106.
32.
Kavale, K. A.
(1984). Potential advantages of the meta-analysis technique forresearch in special education. Journal of Special Education, 18, 62-72.
33.
Light, R. J.
, & Pillemer, D. B. (1982). Numbers and narratives: Combining their strengths in research reviews. Harvard Educational Review, 52, 1-26.
34.
Light, R. J.
, & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
Lipsey, M.
, & Wilson, D. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48,1181-1209.
36.
Mann, C.
(1990). Meta-analysis in the breech. Science, 249, 476-480.
37.
Matt, G.
(1989). Decision rules for selecting effect sizes in meta-analysis: A review and reanalysis of psycho-therapy outcome studies. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 106-115.
38.
Preiss, R.
, & Allen, M. (1994). The persuasive effects of incentives on counterattitudinal advocacy. In M. Allen & R. Preiss (Eds.), Prospects and precautions in the use of metaanalysis (pp. 339-361). Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark
39.
Preiss, R.
, Wheeless, L., & Allen, M. (1990). The cognitive consequences of receiver apprehension: An empirical review. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 155-172.
40.
Rosenthal, R.
(1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
41.
Rosenthal, R.
(1987). Judgment studies: Design, analysis and meta-analysis. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
42.
Schmidt, F.
, Hunter, J., Pearlman, K., Hirsh, H., Sackett, P., Schmidt, N., Kehoe, J., Tenopry, M., & Zedeck, S. (1985). Forty questions about validity generalization and meta-analysis and commentary. Personnel Psychology, 38, 697-799.
43.
Schwarzer, R.
, & Leppin, A. (1989). Social support and health: Ameta-analysis. Psychology and Health, 3, 1-15.
44.
Smith, M. L.
(1980). Publication bias and meta-analysis. In H. J. Walberg & E. J. Haertel (Eds.), Evaluation in education (Vol. 4, pp. 109-125). London: Pergamon.
45.
Smith, M. L.
, & Glass, G. V. (1977). Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychologist, 32, 752-760.
46.
Spector, P.
, & Levine, E. (1987). Meta-analysis for integrating study outcomes: A Monte Carlo study of its susceptibility to Type I and Type II error. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 72, 3-9.
47.
Strube, M. J.
, Gardner, W., & Hartmann, D. P. (1985). Limitations, liabilities, and obstacles in reviews of the literature: The current status of meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 51, 63-78.
48.
Strube, M. J.
, & Hartmann, D. P. (1982). A critical appraisal of meta-analysis. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 63-78.
49.
Strube, M. J.
, & Hartmann, D. P. (1983). Meta-analysis: Techniques, applications, and functions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 14-27.
50.
Sutton, S.
(1982). Fear arousing communications: Acritical examination of theory and research. InJ. Eiser (Ed.), Socialpsychology and behavioral medicine (pp. 303-337). New York: Wiley.
51.
Terpstra, D.
(1981). Relationship between methodological rigor and reported outcomes in organization development evaluation research. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 66, 541-543.
52.
Tracz, S. M. (1984). The effect of violation of the asswnption of independence when combining correlation coefficients in a meta-analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.
53.
Under the metascope. (1992, May 18). Economist, pp. 91-92.
54.
Wachter, K.
, & Straf, M. (Eds.). (1990). The future of meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage.
55.
Wolf, J.
(1986). Meta-analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
