Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

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 Sanchez-Meca, J.
Right arrow Articles by Marín-Martínez, F.
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?

Weighting by Inverse Variance or by Sample Size in Meta-Analysis: A Simulation Study

Julio Sanchez-Meca

University of Murcia jsmeca{at}fcu.um.es

Fulgencio Marín-Martínez

University of Murcia

In meta-analysis, a weighted average effect size is usually obtained to summarize the global magnitude through a set of primary studies. The optimal weight to obtain the unbiased and minimum variance estimator is the inverse variance of each effect-size estimate. In practice, it is not possible to compute the optimal inverse variance because the population effect size is unknown. Hedges and Olkin and Hunter and Schmidt proposed two alternative estimators of optimal weights. In this article, the bias and relative efficiency of both estimators are assessed via Monte Carlo simulation, defining the standardized mean difference as the effect-size index. The number of studies, sample size, magnitude of population effect size, and discrepancy between two population effect sizes were manipulated. Hedges and Olkin's estimatorwas more efficient, although more biased, than Hunter and Schmidt's estimator. The consequences of applying both alternatives in meta-analyses are discussed.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 58, No. 2, 211-220 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164498058002005
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
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
F. Schmidt
Meta-Analysis: A Constantly Evolving Research Integration Tool
Organizational Research Methods, January 1, 2008; 11(1): 96 - 113.
[Abstract] [PDF]