Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lopez-Lee, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lopez-Lee, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Indiscriminate Data Aggregations in Meta-Analysis

A Cause for Concern Among Policy Makers and Social Scientists

David Lopez-Lee

University of Southern California

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.

Evaluation Review, Vol. 26, No. 5, 520-544 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/019384102236522
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?