The consistency test may be too weak to be useful: its systematic application would not improve effect size estimation in meta-analyses

DOI10.1016/J.JMP.2013.03.007MaRDI QIDQ2437266zbMATH OpenOpenAlexFDO

Authors Joachim Vandekerckhove, Maime Guan, Steven A. Styrcula

Publication date 3 March 2014

Published in Journal of Mathematical Psychology (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9281k26m

zbMATH Keywords

meta-analysis

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Applications of statistics to psychology (62P15) Mathematical psychology (91E99)

Recommendations

• The consistency test does not -- and cannot -- deliver what is advertised: a comment on Francis (2013)
• Reducing the Number of Unjustified Significant Results in Meta-analysis
• The bias of the commonly-used estimate of variance in meta-analysis
• Confidence Intervals and P‐Values for Meta‐Analysis with Publication Bias
• Consequences of effect size heterogeneity for meta-analysis: a Monte Carlo study

Cites work

• Replication, statistical consistency, and publication bias

Cited in

(2)

• The consistency test does not -- and cannot -- deliver what is advertised: a comment on Francis (2013)
• We should focus on the biases that matter: a reply to commentaries

This page was built for publication: The consistency test may be too weak to be useful: its systematic application would not improve effect size estimation in meta-analyses

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2437266)