Indiscriminate Data Aggregations in Meta-Analysis

David Lopez-Lee
Additional contact information
David Lopez-Lee: University of Southern California

Evaluation Review, 2002, vol. 26, issue 5, 520-544

Abstract: Whether you are a policy maker or social scientist, you are slowly being drowned in a sea of often inconsistent research data. Proponents of meta-analysis claim that such data can be objectively and usefully summarized for you. The author notes how the assumptions of the meta-analytic model preclude the synthesis of experimental data (which has a clear cause-and-effect logic) with quasi-experimental and/or nonexperimental data (both of which lack such clarity). Yet in the author’s review of 64 recent meta-analytic articles, 11 were found to improperly make such aggregations. Why? The author shows how the guidance provided by the leading proponents of meta-analysis either blurs the distinction or is misleading.

Date: 2002
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/019384102236522 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:evarev:v:26:y:2002:i:5:p:520-544

DOI: 10.1177/019384102236522

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Evaluation Review
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().