Meta-Analysis of Meta-Analyses in Communication: Comparing Fixed Effects and Random Effects Analysis Models
Thirty-nine meta-analyses obtained from the past 10 years of communication research (1997-2007) were reanalyzed using fixed effects (FE), random effects (RE), and Hunter and Schmidt (HS) meta-analytic methods. The majority of studies (62%) reported use of the HS model in the original analysis. Diffe...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Communication quarterly 2010-01, Vol.58 (3), p.257-278 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Thirty-nine meta-analyses obtained from the past 10 years of communication research (1997-2007) were reanalyzed using fixed effects (FE), random effects (RE), and Hunter and Schmidt (HS) meta-analytic methods. The majority of studies (62%) reported use of the HS model in the original analysis. Differences identified between models include (a) greater propensity for Type 1 error under the FE approach, (b) episodes of inflated effect size (ES) under the RE approach, and (c) high levels of heterogeneity in population ESs across studies. Recommendations are made for scholars to appropriately choose and implement meta-analytic models in future research. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0146-3373 1746-4102 |
DOI: | 10.1080/01463373.2010.503154 |