Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3e

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Carson, K. P.
Right arrow Articles by Kinicki, A. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Usefulness of the "Fail-Safe" Statistic in Meta-Analysis

Kenneth P. Carson

Arizona State University

Chester A. Schriesheim

University of Miami

Angelo J. Kinicki

Arizona State University

Rosenthal (1979, 1984) proposed that a fail-safe N statistic be calculated for all meta-analytic studies to aid researchers in detecting instability in meta-analytic results. However, few meta-analysts seem to have calculated fail-safe N's, despite the ease of doing so. As research exploring the practical utility of this statistic is nonexistent, this study evaluated the utility of fail-safe N's by computing them for studies in three research domains in which discrepant conclusions were reached by initial meta-analyses (with limited samples) and by subsequent follow-ups (with more inclusive samples). The current results suggest that calculation of a fail-safe N may have led to more cautious and circumspect interpretations of previous meta-analytic results. Implications of these findings for future meta-analytic research are discussed

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 50, No. 2, 233-243 (1990)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164490502001
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
B. Mullen, P. Muellerleile, and B. Bryant
Cumulative Meta-Analysis: A Consideration of Indicators of Sufficiency and Stability
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, November 1, 2001; 27(11): 1450 - 1462.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
T. Morrison and M. Morrison
A Meta-Analytic Assessment of the Predictive Validity of the Quantitative and Verbal Components of the Graduate Record Examination with Graduate Grade Point Average Representing the Criterion of Graduate Success
Educational and Psychological Measurement, April 1, 1995; 55(2): 309 - 316.
[Abstract]