LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Field, A. P. (2005)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: HA, BF
One conceptualization of meta-analysis is that studies within the meta-analysis are sampled from populations with mean effect sizes that vary (random-effects models). The consequences of not applying such models and the comparison of different methods have been hotly debated. A Monte Carlo study compared the efficacy of Hedges and Vevea's random-effects methods of meta-analysis with Hunter and Schmidt's, over a wide range of conditions, as the variability in population correlations increases. (a) The Hunter-Schmidt method produced estimates of the average correlation with the least error, although estimates from both methods were very accurate; (b) confidence intervals from Hunter and Schmidt's method were always slightly too narrow but became more accurate than those from Hedges and Vevea's method as the number of studies included in the meta-analysis, the size of the true correlation, and the variability of correlations increased; and (c) the study weights did not explain the differences between the methods.
  • No references.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article