Premium
DETECTING MODERATORS WITH META‐ANALYSIS: AN EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF TECHNIQUES
Author(s) -
SAGIE ABRAHAM,
KOSLOWSKY MENI
Publication year - 1993
Publication title -
personnel psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 6.076
H-Index - 142
eISSN - 1744-6570
pISSN - 0031-5826
DOI - 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00888.x
Subject(s) - statistic , statistics , type i and type ii errors , credibility , meta analysis , confidence interval , sample size determination , population , interval (graph theory) , monte carlo method , psychology , econometrics , mathematics , medicine , combinatorics , environmental health , political science , law
The present study evaluated accuracy levels of seven techniques for ascertaining, after a meta‐analysis, whether moderators are present or not: (a) SH‐75% rule for uncorrected r , (b) SH‐75% rule for corrected r, (c) SH‐95% rule for uncorrected r , (d) SH‐95% rule for corrected r, (e) the Q statistic; (f) inclusion of 0 in the credibility interval around the corrected r, and (g) the size of the interval. Using Monte Carlo data which were defined by various parameters including sample based artifacts, comparisons of Type I and power determinations were generated. Findings showed that when differences between population correlations were small, power levels for all techniques were relatively low. Overall, SH rules and the Q statistic had greater power but higher Type I error rate than credibility intervals. Because of the high Type I error rate associated with both of the SH‐95% techniques and the low power found with the credibility intervals, the SH‐75% rules and Q statistic are recommended. Limitations and some practical implications for the findings are discussed.