Neglect of publication bias compromises meta-analyses of educational research

Ivan Ropovik, Matus Adamkovic and David Greger

PLOS ONE, 2021, vol. 16, issue 6, 1-14

Abstract: Because negative findings have less chance of getting published, available studies tend to be a biased sample. This leads to an inflation of effect size estimates to an unknown degree. To see how meta-analyses in education account for publication bias, we surveyed all meta-analyses published in the last five years in the Review of Educational Research and Educational Research Review. The results show that meta-analyses usually neglect publication bias adjustment. In the minority of meta-analyses adjusting for bias, mostly non-principled adjustment methods were used, and only rarely were the conclusions based on corrected estimates, rendering the adjustment inconsequential. It is argued that appropriate state-of-the-art adjustment (e.g., selection models) should be attempted by default, yet one needs to take into account the uncertainty inherent in any meta-analytic inference under bias. We conclude by providing practical recommendations on dealing with publication bias.

Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252415 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 52415&type=printable (application/pdf)

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:plo:pone00:0252415

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0252415

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().