Blog
About

10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis.

      ,

      Psychological Methods

      American Psychological Association (APA)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Calculations of the power of statistical tests are important in planning research studies (including meta-analyses) and in interpreting situations in which a result has not proven to be statistically significant. The authors describe procedures to compute statistical power of fixed- and random-effects tests of the mean effect size, tests for heterogeneity (or variation) of effect size parameters across studies, and tests for contrasts among effect sizes of different studies. Examples are given using 2 published meta-analyses. The examples illustrate that statistical power is not always high in meta-analysis.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 10

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Impact of sexual abuse on children: A review and synthesis of recent empirical studies.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples.

              Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Psychological Methods
                Psychological Methods
                American Psychological Association (APA)
                1939-1463
                1082-989X
                2001
                2001
                : 6
                : 3
                : 203-217
                Article
                10.1037/1082-989X.6.3.203
                11570228
                © 2001

                Comments

                Comment on this article