Premium
A critical appraisal of meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Strube Michael J.,
Hartmann Donald P.
Publication year - 1982
Publication title -
british journal of clinical psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.479
H-Index - 92
eISSN - 2044-8260
pISSN - 0144-6657
DOI - 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1982.tb00541.x
Subject(s) - meta analysis , psychology , critical appraisal , set (abstract data type) , independence (probability theory) , outcome (game theory) , cognitive psychology , econometrics , statistics , computer science , medicine , alternative medicine , mathematics , mathematical economics , pathology , programming language
Meta‐analysis is an increasingly popular, objective method for summarizing a body of empirical findings. The standard meta‐analysis package consists of methods for estimating the combined probability and average effect size for a set of studies, the stability of these results, and the factors associated with differential treatment outcomes. While meta‐analysis is a powerful analytic technique, the procedure has limitations that should be carefully evaluated when it is applied to the psychotherapy — or any other — literature. These limitations include biased selection of studies; reporting inaccuracies, poor quality data, various sources of invalidity (conceptual, methodological, and statistical), and lack of independence in the studies reviewed; and variability in outcome produced by the meta‐analytic techniques employed. Despite these potential problems, the advantages of meta‐analysis are so substantial that the techniques deserve routine use as an aid to summarizing treatment literatures.