• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Review of general psychology >Random or Fixed? An Empirical Examination of Meta-Analysis Model Choices
【24h】

Random or Fixed? An Empirical Examination of Meta-Analysis Model Choices

机译：随机的还是固定的?荟萃分析模型的选择

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

When conducting meta-analyses, researchers must make decisions about which statistical model is most appropriate for the specific context and aims of the meta-analysis. Although there are several metaanalysis models, most researchers choose between two general models: fixed-effect (FE) and randomeffects (RE). Yet, the basis on which these two general models are distinguished and of when it is appropriate to use one or the other varies in the methodological literature. Although model-to-inference inconsistencies have been previously noted, there has been little empirical investigation of whether, and to what extent, the varying conceptualizations of the distinctions between FE and RE models are reflected in published meta-analyses. The present study explores whether conceptualizations of model distinctions among psychological researchers are consistent with those in the methods literature. We also examine model choices and rationales given by psychological researchers in two samples of published metaanalyses in psychology-related journals. We identify four primary categories for distinguishing between FE and RE models, only two of which were predominant in our samples. Although model choice appears to be reported at a moderately high rate, many researchers continue not to provide explicit rationales for their model choices or do not clearly tie model choices to the specific research aims of the meta-analyses. Implications of these findings are discussed.
机译：当进行荟萃分析,研究人员必须统计模型的做出决定最适合特定的上下文和荟萃分析的目的。几个metaanalysis模型,大多数研究人员选择两个通用模型:固定效果(铁)和randomeffects (RE)。这两个通用模型是有区别的吗时,适当的使用一个或其他不同方法论的文学。尽管model-to-inference不一致之前提到的,几乎没有实证调查的,什么程度上的不同的概念化铁和再保险模型之间的区别反映在出版的荟萃分析。研究探讨了是否概念化模型之间的区别的心理研究人员正在与那些一致方法文献。和依据的心理研究人员在metaanalyses发表在两个样品心理学期刊。主要类别区分铁和再保险模型,其中只有两个是主要的在我们的样本。报告在一个适度的高速度,很多研究人员继续没有提供明确的依据模型的选择或不显然领带的特定模式的选择研究目的的荟萃分析。这些研究结果进行了讨论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号