对照组和荟萃分析

J. Hunter, Jason L. Jensen, R. Rodgers
{"title":"对照组和荟萃分析","authors":"J. Hunter, Jason L. Jensen, R. Rodgers","doi":"10.2458/V5I1.18302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social scientists use a mixture of different methodologies, which creates problems for researchers attempting to review the cumulative results of all studies.  Standard practice for review studies using meta-analysis is to adjust the findings of all studies that use control groups and to include studies not having control groups without adjustment for extraneous effects, or to not use studies that lack a control group, which could produce an erroneous result.  Our study develops a novel meta-analytic procedure that combines the evidence on control group change with evidence on change from the intervention, making it possible to adjust for the effects of extraneous factors in all studies and bridges the gap between control group studies and other types of studies. DOI:10.2458/azu_jmmss_v5i1_hunter","PeriodicalId":90602,"journal":{"name":"Journal of methods and measurement in the social sciences","volume":"5 1","pages":"3-21"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2458/V5I1.18302","citationCount":"17","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Control Group and Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"J. Hunter, Jason L. Jensen, R. Rodgers\",\"doi\":\"10.2458/V5I1.18302\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Social scientists use a mixture of different methodologies, which creates problems for researchers attempting to review the cumulative results of all studies.  Standard practice for review studies using meta-analysis is to adjust the findings of all studies that use control groups and to include studies not having control groups without adjustment for extraneous effects, or to not use studies that lack a control group, which could produce an erroneous result.  Our study develops a novel meta-analytic procedure that combines the evidence on control group change with evidence on change from the intervention, making it possible to adjust for the effects of extraneous factors in all studies and bridges the gap between control group studies and other types of studies. DOI:10.2458/azu_jmmss_v5i1_hunter\",\"PeriodicalId\":90602,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of methods and measurement in the social sciences\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"3-21\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2458/V5I1.18302\",\"citationCount\":\"17\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of methods and measurement in the social sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2458/V5I1.18302\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of methods and measurement in the social sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2458/V5I1.18302","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

摘要

社会科学家混合使用不同的方法,这给试图回顾所有研究的累积结果的研究人员带来了问题。使用荟萃分析的回顾性研究的标准做法是对所有使用对照组的研究结果进行调整,并纳入没有对照组的研究,而不需要对无关效应进行调整,或者不使用缺乏对照组的研究,否则可能产生错误的结果。我们的研究开发了一种新的荟萃分析程序,将对照组变化的证据与干预措施变化的证据结合起来,使所有研究中对外来因素的影响进行调整成为可能,并弥合了对照组研究与其他类型研究之间的差距。DOI: 10.2458 / azu_jmmss_v5i1_hunter
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Control Group and Meta-Analysis
Social scientists use a mixture of different methodologies, which creates problems for researchers attempting to review the cumulative results of all studies.  Standard practice for review studies using meta-analysis is to adjust the findings of all studies that use control groups and to include studies not having control groups without adjustment for extraneous effects, or to not use studies that lack a control group, which could produce an erroneous result.  Our study develops a novel meta-analytic procedure that combines the evidence on control group change with evidence on change from the intervention, making it possible to adjust for the effects of extraneous factors in all studies and bridges the gap between control group studies and other types of studies. DOI:10.2458/azu_jmmss_v5i1_hunter
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
Invitation for COVID-19 Submissions Machine Learning Method for High-Dimensional Education Data Comparing human coding to two natural language processing algorithms in aspirations of people affected by Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy The Modern Biased Information Test: Proposing alternatives for implicit measures Binary Classification: An Introductory Machine Learning Tutorial for Social Scientists
×
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