Heterogeneity in Meta-Analytic Effect Sizes: An Assessment of the Current State of the Literature

IF 8.9 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Organizational Research Methods Pub Date : 2023-05-19 DOI:10.1177/10944281231169942
S. Kepes, Wenhao Wang, J. Cortina
{"title":"Heterogeneity in Meta-Analytic Effect Sizes: An Assessment of the Current State of the Literature","authors":"S. Kepes, Wenhao Wang, J. Cortina","doi":"10.1177/10944281231169942","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Heterogeneity refers to the variability in effect sizes across different samples and is one of the major criteria to judge the importance and advancement of a scientific area. To determine how studies in the organizational sciences address heterogeneity, we conduct two studies. In study 1, we examine how meta-analytic studies conduct heterogeneity assessments and report and interpret the obtained results. To do so, we coded heterogeneity-related information from meta-analytic studies published in five leading journals. We found that most meta-analytic studies report several heterogeneity statistics. At the same time, however, there tends to be a lack of detail and thoroughness in the interpretation of these statistics. In study 2, we review how primary studies report heterogeneity-related results and conclusions from meta-analyses. We found that the quality of the reporting of heterogeneity-related information in primary studies tends to be poor and unrelated to the detail and thoroughness with which meta-analytic studies report and interpret the statistics. Based on our findings, we discuss implications for practice and provide recommendations for how heterogeneity assessments should be conducted and communicated in future research.","PeriodicalId":19689,"journal":{"name":"Organizational Research Methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizational Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10944281231169942","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Heterogeneity refers to the variability in effect sizes across different samples and is one of the major criteria to judge the importance and advancement of a scientific area. To determine how studies in the organizational sciences address heterogeneity, we conduct two studies. In study 1, we examine how meta-analytic studies conduct heterogeneity assessments and report and interpret the obtained results. To do so, we coded heterogeneity-related information from meta-analytic studies published in five leading journals. We found that most meta-analytic studies report several heterogeneity statistics. At the same time, however, there tends to be a lack of detail and thoroughness in the interpretation of these statistics. In study 2, we review how primary studies report heterogeneity-related results and conclusions from meta-analyses. We found that the quality of the reporting of heterogeneity-related information in primary studies tends to be poor and unrelated to the detail and thoroughness with which meta-analytic studies report and interpret the statistics. Based on our findings, we discuss implications for practice and provide recommendations for how heterogeneity assessments should be conducted and communicated in future research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
元分析效应大小的异质性:对文献现状的评估
异质性是指不同样本间效应大小的可变性,是判断一个科学领域重要性和先进性的主要标准之一。为了确定组织科学研究如何处理异质性,我们进行了两项研究。在研究1中,我们研究了元分析研究如何进行异质性评估,并报告和解释所获得的结果。为此,我们对发表在五种主要期刊上的荟萃分析研究中的异质性相关信息进行了编码。我们发现大多数荟萃分析研究报告了一些异质性统计数据。然而,与此同时,对这些统计数字的解释往往缺乏细节和彻底性。在研究2中,我们回顾了原始研究如何报告异质性相关的结果和荟萃分析的结论。我们发现,在初级研究中,报告异质性相关信息的质量往往较差,与元分析研究报告和解释统计数据的细节和彻底性无关。基于我们的研究结果,我们讨论了对实践的影响,并就异质性评估应如何在未来的研究中进行和交流提供了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
23.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Organizational Research Methods (ORM) was founded with the aim of introducing pertinent methodological advancements to researchers in organizational sciences. The objective of ORM is to promote the application of current and emerging methodologies to advance both theory and research practices. Articles are expected to be comprehensible to readers with a background consistent with the methodological and statistical training provided in contemporary organizational sciences doctoral programs. The text should be presented in a manner that facilitates accessibility. For instance, highly technical content should be placed in appendices, and authors are encouraged to include example data and computer code when relevant. Additionally, authors should explicitly outline how their contribution has the potential to advance organizational theory and research practice.
期刊最新文献
The Internet Never Forgets: A Four-Step Scraping Tutorial, Codebase, and Database for Longitudinal Organizational Website Data One Size Does Not Fit All: Unraveling Item Response Process Heterogeneity Using the Mixture Dominance-Unfolding Model (MixDUM) Taking It Easy: Off-the-Shelf Versus Fine-Tuned Supervised Modeling of Performance Appraisal Text Hello World! Building Computational Models to Represent Social and Organizational Theory The Effects of the Training Sample Size, Ground Truth Reliability, and NLP Method on Language-Based Automatic Interview Scores’ Psychometric Properties
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1