An Empirical Investigation of Inadequate Statistical Reporting Practices in Communication Meta-Analyses and Their Consequences

ABSTRACT Insufficient statistical reporting practices (ISRPs) involve failure to report effect sizes or the information necessary to compute them in quantitative research. ISRPs can present problems for advancing knowledge in the field of Communication. Because, among other issues, studies containing ISRPs cannot be included in meta-analytic reviews, this practice undermines our ability to quantitatively summarize the findings from communication research with precision. We examine the prevalence and consequences of ISRPs among 50 meta-analyses published in four flagship communication journals. Our findings indicate that 80% of meta-analyses excluded at least one otherwise qualified primary study due to ISRPs, with a median of 6.5% of studies (k = 2) excluded per meta-analysis. The amount of inaccuracy introduced by ISRPs in the results of meta-analyses was small. Implications of the findings for communication research are discussed.