Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics

Volumn 30, Issue , 2010, Pages 85-110

  Oswald, Frederick L ^a   Plonsky, Luke ^b  

^a RICE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649923309     PISSN: 02671905     EISSN: 14716356     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1017/S0267190510000115     Document Type: Review

References (166)

1. Abraham, L. B. (2008). Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 199-226.
2. Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2009, April). Systematic review and meta-analysis on the cognitive benefits of bilingualism. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA
3. Balluerka, N., G'omez, J., & Hidalgo, D. (2005). The controversy over null hypothesis significance testing revisited. Methodology, 1, 55-70.
4. Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1995). Misunderstanding meta-analysis. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 18, 304-314.
5. Becker, B. J. (2005). Failsafe N or file-drawer number. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 111-126). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
6. Becker, B. J. (2009). Model-based meta-analysis. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 377-395). New York: Sage.
7. Berlin, J. A.,&Ghersi, D. G. (2005). Preventing publication bias: Registries and prospective meta-analysis. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 35-48). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
8. Borenstein, M. (2005). Software for publication bias. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 193-220). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
9. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2). Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
10. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
11. Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1323-1329.
12. Chandler, J. (2004). A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 345-348.
13. Cheung, S. F., & Chan, D. K.-S. (2004). Dependent effect sizes in meta-analysis: Incorporating the degree of interdependence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 780-791.
14. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Cooper, H. (2003). Editorial. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 3-9.
17. Cooper, H. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1980). Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 442-449.
18. Crookes, G. (1991). Power, effect size, and second language research: Another researcher comments. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 762-765.
19. Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2005). Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60, 170-180.
20. Dinsmore, T. H. (2006). Principles, parameters, and SLA: A retrospective meta-analytic investigation into adult L2 learners' access to Universal Grammar. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 53-90). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
21. Ellis, N. C. (2006).Meta-analysis, human cognition, and language learning. In J.M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 301-322). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
22. Eysenck, H. J. (1984). Meta-analysis: An abuse of research integration. Journal of Special Education, 18, 41-59.
23. Fern, E. F., & Monroe, K. B. (1996). Effect-size estimates: Issues and problems in interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 89-105
24. Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11.
25. Ferris, D. (2004). The ''grammar correction'' debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.
26. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8. Balluerka, N.
27. G'omez, J., & Hidalgo, D. (2005). The controversy over null hypothesis significance testing revisited. Methodology, 1, 55-70.
28. Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1995). Misunderstanding meta-analysis. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 18, 304-314.
29. Becker, B. J. (2005). Failsafe N or file-drawer number. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 111-126). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
30. Becker, B. J. (2009). Model-based meta-analysis. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 377-395). New York: Sage.
31. Berlin, J. A.,&Ghersi, D. G. (2005). Preventing publication bias: Registries and prospective meta-analysis. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 35-48). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
32. Borenstein, M. (2005). Software for publication bias. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 193-220). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
33. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2). Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
34. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
35. Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1323-1329.
36. Chandler, J. (2004). A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 345-348.
37. Cheung, S. F., & Chan, D. K.-S. (2004). Dependent effect sizes in meta-analysis: Incorporating the degree of interdependence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 780-791.
38. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Cooper, H. (2003). Editorial. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 3-9.
41. Cooper, H. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1980). Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 442-449.
42. Crookes, G. (1991). Power, effect size, and second language research: Another researcher comments. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 762-765.
43. Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2005). Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60, 170-180.
44. Dinsmore, T. H. (2006). Principles, parameters, and SLA: A retrospective meta-analytic investigation into adult L2 learners' access to Universal Grammar. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 53-90). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
45. Ellis, N. C. (2006).Meta-analysis, human cognition, and language learning. In J.M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 301-322). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
46. Eysenck, H. J. (1984). Meta-analysis: An abuse of research integration. Journal of Special Education, 18, 41-59.
47. Fern, E. F., & Monroe, K. B. (1996). Effect-size estimates: Issues and problems in interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 89-105.
48. Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11.
49. Ferris, D. (2004). The ''grammar correction'' debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.
50. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8. Balluerka, N., G'omez, J., & Hidalgo, D. (2005). The controversy over null hypothesis significance testing revisited. Methodology, 1, 55-70.
51. Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1995). Misunderstanding meta-analysis. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 18, 304-314.
52. Becker, B. J. (2005). Failsafe N or file-drawer number. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 111-126). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
53. Becker, B. J. (2009). Model-based meta-analysis. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 377-395). New York: Sage.
54. Berlin, J. A.,&Ghersi, D. G. (2005). Preventing publication bias: Registries and prospective meta-analysis. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 35-48). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
55. Borenstein, M. (2005). Software for publication bias. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 193-220). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
56. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2). Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
57. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
58. Burnham, J. C. (1990). The evolution of editorial peer review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1323-1329.
59. Chandler, J. (2004). A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 345-348.
60. Cheung, S. F., & Chan, D. K.-S. (2004). Dependent effect sizes in meta-analysis: Incorporating the degree of interdependence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 780-791.
61. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Cooper, H. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
63. Cooper, H. (2003). Editorial. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 3-9.
64. Cooper, H. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1980). Statistical versus traditional procedures for summarizing research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 442-449.
65. Crookes, G. (1991). Power, effect size, and second language research: Another researcher comments. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 762-765.
66. Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2005). Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60, 170-180.
67. Dinsmore, T. H. (2006). Principles, parameters, and SLA: A retrospective meta-analytic investigation into adult L2 learners' access to Universal Grammar. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 53-90). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
68. Ellis, N. C. (2006).Meta-analysis, human cognition, and language learning. In J.M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 301-322). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
69. Eysenck, H. J. (1984). Meta-analysis: An abuse of research integration. Journal of Special Education, 18, 41-59.
70. Fern, E. F., & Monroe, K. B. (1996). Effect-size estimates: Issues and problems in interpretation. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 89-105.
71. Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11.
72. Ferris, D. (2004). The ''grammar correction'' debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62.
73. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8.
74. Gleser, L. J., & Olkin, I. (2009). Stochastically dependent effect sizes. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis 2nd ed., (pp. 357-376). New York: Sage.
75. Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1-50.
76. Goo, J., Granena, G., Novella, M., & Yilmaz, Y. (2009, October). Implicit and explicit instruction in L2 learning: Norris and Ortega (2000) revisited and updated. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI.
77. Grgurovi'c, M. (2007, October). Research on CALL comparison studies: Can a meta-analysis inform instructed SLA? Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
78. Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). Interpreting and evaluating meta-analysis. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 18, 393-407.
79. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
80. Hedges, L. V., & Pigott, T. D. (2001). The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 6, 203-217.
81. Henning, G. (1986). Quantitative methods in language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 701-708.
82. Henson, R. K. (2006). Effect-size measures and meta-analytic thinking in counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 601-629.
83. Higgins, J. P. T., White, I. R., & Wood, A. M. (2008). Imputation methods for missing outcome data in meta-analysis of clinical trials. Clinical Trials, 5, 225-239.
84. Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology literatures. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 65, 599-610.
85. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
86. In'nami, Y., & Koizumi, R. (2009). A meta-analysis of test format effects on reading and listening test performance: Focus on multiple-choice and open-ended formats. Language Testing, 26, 219-244.
87. Jeon, E. H., & Kaya, T. (2006). Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 165-211). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
88. Kavale, K. A. (1995).Meta-analysis at 20: Retrospect and prospect. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 18, 349-369.
89. Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N., & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91-131). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
90. Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 746-759.
91. Kline, R. B. (2004). Beyond significance testing: Reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
92. Kline, R. B. (2009). Becoming a behavioral science researcher: A guide to producing research that matters. New York: Guilford Press.
93. Language Teaching Review Panel (2008). Replication studies in language learning and teaching: Questions and answers. Language Teaching, 41, 1-14.
94. Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.
95. Lazaraton, A. (1991). Power, effect size, and second language research: A researcher comments. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 759-762.
96. Lazaraton, A. (2000). Current trends in research methodology and statistics in applied linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 175-181.
97. Lee, S.-K., & Huang, H.-T. (2008). Visual input enhancement and grammar learning: A meta-analytic review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 307-331.
98. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309-365.
99. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181-1209.
100. Lipsey M.W. Wilson D.B. 2001 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
101. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J. C., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
102. Lykken,D. (1968). Statistical significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 151-159.
103. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265-302.
104. Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407-451). New York: Oxford University Press.
105. Masgoret, A.-M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53, 123-163.
106. Miller, P. C., & Pan, W. (2009, March). Recasts in the L2 classroom: A meta-analytic review. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Denver, CO.
107. Mitchell, G. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (2009). A renewed appeal for adversarial collaboration. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 71-72.
108. Moncrieff, J. (1998). Research synthesis: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. International Review of Psychiatry, 10, 304-311.
109. Morris, S. B. (2008). Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest- control group designs. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 364-386.
110. Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7, 105-125.
111. Nekrasova, T., & Becker, T. (2009). Effectiveness of practice: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Manuscript in preparation.
112. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528.
113. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 717-761). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
114. Norris, J. M.,&Ortega, L. (2006). The value and practice of research synthesis for language learning and teaching. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 3-50). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
115. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2007). The future of research synthesis in applied linguistics: Beyond art or science. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 805-815.
116. Ortega, L. (2010). Research syntheses. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 111-126). London: Continuum.
117. Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 157-159.
118. Orwin, R. G., & Vevea, J. L. (2009). Evaluating coding decisions. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (2nd ed., pp. 177-203). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
119. Oswald, F. L.,&Johnson, J. W. (1998).On the robustness, bias, and stability of results from meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: Some initial Monte Carlo findings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 164-178.
120. Oswald, F. L., & McCloy, R. A. (2003). Meta-analysis and the art of the average. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Validity generalization: A critical review (pp. 311-338). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
121. Plonsky, L. (2009, October). "Nix the null": Why statistical significance is overrated. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, East Lansing, MI.
122. Plonsky, L. (in press). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A metaanalysis.
123. Polio, C., & Gass, S. (1997). Replication and reporting: A commentary. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 499-508.
124. Poltavtchenko, E., & Johnson, M. D. (2009, March). Feedback and second language writing: A meta-analysis. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of TESOL, Denver, CO.
125. Porte, G. (2009, March). Encouraging replication research in the field of applied linguistics and second language acquisition. Invited colloquium presented at the meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Denver, CO.
126. Preiss, R. W., & Allen, M. (1995). Understanding and using meta-analysis. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 18, 315-335.
127. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160-164.
128. Rosenthal, R. (1978). Combining results of independent studies. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 185-193.
129. Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 59-82.
130. Ross, S. (1998). Self-assessment in second language testing: A meta-analysis and analysis of experiential factors. Language Testing, 15, 1-20.
131. Rothstein H. R., Sutton A. J., & Borenstein M. (Eds.). (2005). Publication bias in metaanalysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
132. Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
133. Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications for training of researchers. Psychological Methods, 1, 115-129.
134. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 529-540.
135. Schmidt, F. L., Le, H., & Oh, I.-S. (2009). Correcting for the distorting effects of study artifacts in meta-analysis. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 317-333). New York: Sage.
136. Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I-S., & Hayes, T. (2009). Fixed versus random effects models in metaanalysis: Model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results. British
137. Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 97-128.
138. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
139. Slavin, R. E. (1986). Best-evidence synthesis: An alternative to meta-analytic and traditional reviews. Educational Researcher, 15, 5-11.
140. Smith, M. L., Glass, G. V., & Miller, T. I. (1980). The benefits of psychotherapy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.
141. Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 263-308.
142. Sterne, J. A. C., Becker, B. K., & Egger, M. (2005). The funnel plot. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, &M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 75-98). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
143. Sutton, A. J., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2008). Recent development in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 27, 625-650.
144. Taylor, A. (2006). The effects of CALL versus traditional L1 glosses on L2 reading comprehension. CALICO Journal, 23, 309-318.
145. Taylor, A., Stevens, J. R., & Asher, J. W. (2006). The effects of explicit reading strategy training on L2 reading comprehension: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 213-244). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
146. Teleni, V., & Baldauf, R. B. (1989). Statistical techniques used in three applied linguistics journals, Language Learning, Applied Linguistics and TESOL Quarterly 1980-1986: Implications for readers and researchers. Unpublished research report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED312905)
147. Torgerson, C. J. (2006). Publication bias: The Achilles' heel of systematic reviews? British Journal of Educational Studies, 54, 89-102.
148. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
149. Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 24, 103-135.
150. Truscott, J. (1999). The case for "The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes": A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111-122.
151. Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337-343.
152. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
153. Tukey, J. W. (1991). The philosophy of multiple comparisons. Statistical Science, 6, 100- 116.
154. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 105-110.
155. Valdman, A. (1993). Replication study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 505.
156. Valentine, J. C. (2009). Judging the quality of primary research. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (2nd ed., pp. 129-146). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
157. Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2003). Effect Size Substantive Interpretation Guidelines: Issues in the Interpretation of Effect Sizes. Washington, DC: What Works Clearinghouse.
158. Vevea, J. L., & Woods, C. M. (2005). Publication bias in research synthesis: Sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions. Psychological Methods, 10, 428-443.
159. Volker, M. A. (2006). Reporting effect size estimates in school psychology research. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 653-672.
160. Flagstaff, AZ Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). A meta-analysis investigating the effects of reading on second language vocabulary learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.
161. Wanous, J. P., Sullivan, S. E., & Malinak, J. (1989). The role of judgment calls in metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 259-264.
162. White, H. D. (2009). Scientific communication and literature retrieval. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (2nd ed., pp. 51-71). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
163. Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604.
164. Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
165. Won, M. (2008). The effects of vocabulary instruction on English language learners: A metaanalysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.
166. Zhao, Y. (2003). Recent developments in technology and language learning: A literature review and meta-analysis. CALICO Journal, 21, 7-27.