Metaanalytic thinking
You don't need to be Editor-In-Chief to add or edit content to WikiDoc. You can begin to add to or edit text on this WikiDoc page by clicking on the edit button at the top of this page. Next enter or edit the information that you would like to appear here. Once you are done editing, scroll down and click the Save page button at the bottom of the page.
Thompson (2002, p.28) defines meta-analytic thinking as: “a) the prospective formulation of study expectations and design by explicitly invoking prior effect size measures and b) the retrospective interpretation of new results, once they are in hand, via explicit, direct comparison with the prior effect sizes in the related literature”
Prospective formulation involves reviewing the literature for other relevant studies that provide insight into the estimated effect size. Meta analyses can be particularly useful for this purpose.
Retrospective interpretation emphasises not being overly focused on the results of any one study. The approach is somewhat bayesian in its orientation. Results of the focal study are interpreted within a context of prior research. The stronger and more relevant the prior research, and the weaker the current research, the less the results of the current research is given credence. In many respects, each study is interpreted as addition to a much larger meta-analysis.
There is an overall emphasis on aligning research questions with estimates of population parameters. These parameters might be correlations (e.g., correlation between intelligence and job performance), standardised group differences (e.g., the effectiveness of a drug in reducing depression relative to a control group). Any one study will get a point estimate of the effect size and this is what is most commonly reported (e.g., the correlation between x and y is .5). Meta analytic thinking emphasises the importance of also obtaining confidence intervals around effect sizes (e.g., we can be 95% confident that the correlation between x and y is between .3 and .65). This approach highlights the uncertainty associated with our knowledge of the practical importance of an effect. As studies accumulate and sample sizes increase, confidence intervals get progressively smaller.
References
- Thompson, B. (2002). What future quantitative social science research could look like: Confidence intervals for effect size. Educational Researcher, 31(3), 25.
See Also
Acknowledgement and Attribution Regarding Sources of Content
Some of the initial content on this page may be incorporated in part from copyleft sources in the public domain including wikis such as Wikipedia and AskDrWiki. Drug information for patients came from the The National Library of Medicine. Infectious disease information may have come from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Differential Diagnoses are drawn from clinicians as well as an amalgamation of 3 sources: 1.The Disease Database; 2. Kahan, Scott, Smith, Ellen G. In A Page: Signs and Symptoms. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2004:3; 3. Sailer, Christian, Wasner, Susanne. Differential Diagnosis Pocket. Hermosa Beach, CA: Borm Bruckmeir Publishing LLC, 2002:7 .
