An Empirical Review of Research and Reporting Practices in Psychological Meta-Analyses

被引:4
|
作者
Hohn, Richard E. [1 ]
Slaney, Kathleen L. [1 ]
Tafreshi, Donna [2 ]
机构
[1] Simon Fraser Univ, Burnaby, BC, Canada
[2] Univ Fraser Valley, Abbotsford, BC, Canada
关键词
meta-analysis; Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards; meta-analytic practices; open science; POWER; BIAS;
D O I
10.1177/1089268020918844
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
As meta-analytic studies have come to occupy a sizable contingent of published work in the psychological sciences, clarity in the research and reporting practices of such work is crucial to the interpretability and reproducibility of research findings. The present study examines the state of research and reporting practices within a random sample of 384 published psychological meta-analyses across several important dimensions (e.g., search methods, exclusion criteria, statistical techniques). In addition, we surveyed the first authors of the meta-analyses in our sample to ask them directly about the research practices employed and reporting decisions made in their studies, including the assessments and procedures they conducted and the guidelines or materials they relied on. Upon cross-validating the first author responses with what was reported in their published meta-analyses, we identified numerous potential gaps in reporting and research practices. In addition to providing a survey of recent reporting practices, our findings suggest that (a) there are several research practices conducted by meta-analysts that are ultimately not reported; (b) some aspects of meta-analysis research appear to be conducted at disappointingly low rates; and (c) the adoption of the reporting standards, including the Meta-Analytic Reporting Standards (MARS), has been slow to nonexistent within psychological meta-analytic research.
引用
收藏
页码:195 / 209
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] A call for better reporting of conservation research data for use in meta-analyses
    Haddaway, Neal R.
    CONSERVATION BIOLOGY, 2015, 29 (04) : 1242 - 1245
  • [22] A REVIEW OF META-ANALYSES CONDUCTED ON PSYCHOTHERAPY OUTCOME RESEARCH
    BROWN, J
    CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, 1987, 7 (01) : 1 - 23
  • [23] Reporting of results from network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review
    Bafeta, Aida
    Trinquart, Ludovic
    Seror, Raphaele
    Ravaud, Philippe
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2014, 348
  • [24] Preferred reporting items of systematic review and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
    Moher, D.
    Liberati, A.
    Tetzlaff, J.
    Altman, D. G.
    DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT, 2011, 136 (15) : E25 - E25
  • [25] Meta-Methodology: Conducting and Reporting Meta-Analyses
    Turner, J. Rick
    Durham, Todd A.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL HYPERTENSION, 2014, 16 (02): : 91 - 93
  • [26] Primary Study Quality in Psychological Meta-Analyses: An Empirical Assessment of Recent Practice
    Hohn, Richard E.
    Slaney, Kathleen L.
    Tafreshi, Donna
    FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY, 2019, 9
  • [27] Reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with a focus on drug safety: An empirical assessment
    Hammad, Tarek A.
    Neyarapally, George A.
    Pinheiro, Simone P.
    Iyasu, Solomon
    Rochester, George
    Dal Pan, Gerald
    CLINICAL TRIALS, 2013, 10 (03) : 389 - 397
  • [28] Methodology and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
    Lerner, Fred
    Hamblen, Jessica L.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2013, 202 (01) : 75 - 76
  • [29] Prediction intervals reporting in orthodontic meta-analyses
    Seehra, Jadbinder
    Stonehouse-Smith, Daniel
    Pandis, Nikolaos
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2021, 43 (05) : 596 - 600
  • [30] PRISMAtic reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
    Juni, Peter
    Egger, Matthias
    LANCET, 2009, 374 (9697): : 1221 - 1223