Effect-Size Indices for Dichotomized Outcomes in Meta-Analysis

Psychological Methods

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 448-467

  Sánchez Meca, Julio ^a   Marín Martínez, Fulgencio ^a   Chacón Moscoso, Salvador ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MURCIA   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SEVILLE   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PSYCHOLOGY; PSYCHOMETRY; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; META-ANALYSIS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL; PSYCHOMETRICS;

EID: 17544390291     PISSN: 1082989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.448     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Aptech Systems. (1992). The Gauss system (Version 3.0) [Computer software]. Kent, WA: Author.
2. Backer, G., & Thorndike, R. L. (1988). The biserial-phi correlation coefficient. Journal of Psychology, 122, 523-526.
3. Chinn, S. (2000). A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 19, 3127-3131.
4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Cooper, H. (1998). Integrating research: A guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.) (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
7. Cox, D. R. (1970). Analysis of binary data. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
8. Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2001). Effect measures for meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes. In M. Egger, G. Davey Smith, & D. G. Altman (Eds.), Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context (pp. 313-335). London: BMJ Books.
9. Dominici, F., & Parmigiani, G. (2000). Combining studies with continuous and dichotomous responses: A latent-variables approach. In D. K. Stangl & D. A. Berry (Eds.), Meta-analysis in medicine and health policy (pp. 105-125). New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
10. Fleishman, A. I. (1978). A method for simulating nonnormal distributions. Psychometrika, 43, 521-531.
11. Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
12. Fleiss, J. L. (1994). Measures of effect size for categorical data. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 245-260). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
13. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
14. Haddock, C. K., Rindskopf, D., & Shadish, W. R. (1998). Using odds ratios as effect sizes for meta-analysis of dichotomous data: A primer on methods and issues. Psychological Methods, 3, 339-353.
15. Hasselblad, V., & Hedges, L. V. (1995). Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 167-178.
16. Hasselblad, V., Mosteller, F., Littenberg, B., Chalmers, T. C., Hunink, M. G. M., Turner, J. A. et al. (1995). A survey of current problems in meta-analysis: Discussion from the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Inter-PORT Work Group on Literature Review/Meta-analysis. Medical Care, 33, 202-220.
17. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
18. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Dichotomization of continuous variables: The implications for meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 334-349.
19. Johnson, B. T. (1989). DSTAT: Software for the meta-analysis review of research [Computer software and manual]. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Quantitative synthesis of social psychological research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 496-528). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
21. Kraemer, H. C., & Andrews, G. (1982). A nonparametric technique for meta-analysis effect size calculation. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 404-412.
22. Laird, N., & Mosteller, F. (1990). Some statistical methods for combining experimental results. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 6, 5-30.
23. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231-244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
26. Rosenthal, R. (2000). Effect sizes in behavioral and biomedical research: Estimation and interpretation. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Validity and social experimentation: Donald Campbell's legacy (Vol. 1; pp. 121-139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Sánchez-Meca, J., & Marín-Martínez, F. (2000). Testing the significance of a common risk difference in meta-analysis. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 33, 299-313.
28. Sánchez-Meca, J., & Marín-Martínez, F. (2001). Meta-analysis of 2 × 2 tables: Estimating a common risk difference. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 61, 249-276.
29. Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (1994). Combining estimates of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 261-281). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
30. Stuart, A., & Ord, K. (1994). Kendall's advanced theory of statistics. Vol. I: Distribution theory (6th ed.). New York: Edward Arnold.
31. Thorndike, R. L. (1949). Personnel selection. New York: Wiley.
32. Thorndike, R. L. (1982). Applied psychometrics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
33. Whitehead, A., Bailey, A. J., & Elbourne, D. (1999). Combining summaries of binary outcomes with those of continuous outcomes in a meta-analysis. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 9, 1-16.