Abstract
Meta-analysis has become an indispensable tool for reaching accurate and representative conclusions about phenomena of interest within a research literature. However, in order for meta-analytic computations to provide accurate estimates of population parameters (e.g., a population correlation), underlying statistical models need to be both efficient and unbiased. Current fixed-effect (i.e., constant-coefficient) models that assume a common effect for all research results perform poorly under conditions of effect size heterogeneity, whereas current random-effects (i.e., random-coefficient) models require unrealistic assumptions about random sampling of observed effect sizes from a normally distributed superpopulation. This article describes a free statistical software tool that employs a varying-coefficient model recently proposed by Bonett (2008, 2009). The software (Synthesizer 1.0) employs procedures that do not require effect homogeneity or random sampling of effect sizes from a normal distribution. It may be used to meta-analyze correlations, alpha reliabilities, and standardized mean differences. The Synthesizer tool for Microsoft Excel 2007 may be downloaded from the author at www .psychology.iastate.edu/~zkrizan/Synthesizer.htm or as a supplement to the article at http://brm.psychonomic-journals.org/content/supplemental.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bonett, D. G. (2008). Meta-analytic interval estimation for Pearson correlations. Psychological Methods, 13, 173–189.
Bonett, D. G. (2009). Meta-analytic interval estimation for standardized and unstandardized mean differences. Psychological Methods, 14, 225–238.
Bonett, D. G. (2010). Varying coefficient meta-analytic methods for alpha reliability. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Bonett, D. G., & Wright, T. A. (2007). Comments and recommendations regarding the hypothesis testing controversy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 647–659.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. New York: Wiley.
Borenstein, M., & Rothstein, H. (2006). Comprehensive Meta-Analysis: A computer program for research synthesis (Version 2). Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
Cochran, W. G. (1954). The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics, 10, 101–129.
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.) (1994). Handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage.
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (Edss.) (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Russell Sage.
Field, A. P. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods. Psychological Methods, 6, 161–180.
Fisher, R. A. (1921). On the “probable error” of the coefficient of correlation deduced from a small sample. Metron, 1, 1–32.
Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3–8.
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego: Academic Press.
Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486–504.
Higgins, J., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2000). Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: Implications for cumulative knowledge in psychology. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 8, 275–292.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting errors and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Judge, G. G., Griffiths, W. E., Hill, R. C., Lutkepohl, H., & Lee, T.-C. (1985). The theory and practice of econometrics (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Krizan, Z. (2009). Synthesizer 1.0: User’s guide. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
Krizan, Z. (2010). [Narcissism and self-evaluation]. Unpublished raw data.
Miller, R. G. (1986). Beyond ANOVA: Basics of applied statistics. New York: Wiley.
National Research Council (1992). Combining information: Statistical issues and opportunities for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Pearson, K. (1904). Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. Behavioral Medicine Journal, 5, 1243–1246.
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 590.
Rodriguez, M. C., & Maeda, Y. (2006). Meta-analysis of coefficient alpha. Psychological Methods, 11, 306–322.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosenthal, R. (1976). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York: Wiley.
Schulze, R. (2004). Meta-analysis: A comparison of approaches. Toronto: Hogrefe & Huber.
Shadish, W. R., & Haddock, C. K. (1994). Combining estimates of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (pp. 261–281). New York: Russell Sage.
Shapiro, S. (1994). Point/counterpoint: Meta-analysis of observational studies. Meta-analysis/shmeta-analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology, 140, 771–778.
Shuster, J. J. (2010). Empirical vs. natural weighting in random effects meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 29, 1259–1265.
Spearman, C. C. (1910). Correlation calculated from faulty data. British Journal of Psychology, 3, 271–295.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Krizan, Z. Synthesizer 1.0: A varying-coefficient meta-analytic tool. Behavior Research Methods 42, 863–870 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.863
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.3.863