This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Arthur, W. Articles by Huffcutt, A. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Choice of Software and Programs in Meta-Analysis Research: Does it Make a Difference?

Texas A&M University

Winston Benneit

Texas A&M University

Allen Huffcutt

Bradley University

Along with the increased popularity of meta-analysis, a number of articles have questioned and highlighted the role that judgment calls play in the implementation and, ultimately, outcomes of studies that use this technique. In the absence of standardized data analyses packages, and coupled with the wide range of options available to meta-analysts, the current study investigated the effect of choice of data analysis programs on meta-analysis study outcomes. The research objective was to investigate the extent to which four commonly used Schmidt and Hunter validity generalization-based meta-analysis software programs, all based on the same conceptual and theoretical assumptions, produced identical outcomes when used to analyze the same data set. The results indicate that, although there are some differences in values obtained from the programs, these differences tended to be very small, typically occurring in the fourth and sometimes fifth decimal place, and did not influence the meta-analytic outcomes.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 54, No. 3, 776-787 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164494054003024


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?