nach oben

Journal of Business and Psychology

Erschienen in:

01.06.2014

Avoiding Bias in Publication Bias Research: The Value of “Null” Findings

verfasst von: Sven Kepes, George C. Banks, In-Sue Oh

Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology | Ausgabe 2/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Meta-analytic reviews are an important tool for advancing science and guiding evidence-based practice. Publication bias is one of the greatest threats to meta-analytic reviews. This paper assesses the degree of publication bias in four previously published meta-analytic datasets from various fields of study in the organizational sciences. Of these datasets, one appears to be relatively unaffected by publication bias while the others seem to be noticeably influenced by this bias. Our “null” result (i.e., a prior meta-analytic estimate is unlikely to have been affected by publication bias) increases our confidence in the accuracy of our cumulative knowledge. Yet, our other findings suggest the presence of publication bias and point to the need for caution and further research.

Vorheriger Artikel Effects of Personalized Versus Generic Implementation of an Intra-Organizational Online Survey on Psychological Anonymity and Response Behavior: A Field Experiment

Nächster Artikel Null Results in Assessing Survey Score Comparability: Illustrating Measurement Invariance Using Item Response Theory

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Among other factors, the failsafe N (Rosenthal 1979) rests on the improbable assumption that “missing” effect sizes are zero in magnitude (it focuses on p values rather than effect size magnitude). Thus, the failsafe N is inadequate to assess publication bias (Becker 2005; see also, e.g., Aguinis et al. 2011; Becker 1994, Evans 1996; Kepes et al. 2012).

In the organizational sciences, sub-group analyses tend to compare samples published in journal articles to “unpublished” samples (e.g., dissertations, conference papers, completely unpublished samples). Thus, sub-group comparisons assess the extent to which the results from distinct sub-groups differ (Banks et al. 2010). Inherent in such a comparison are the assumptions that all published and unpublished samples have been identified or that the samples in each sub-group are representative of all completed samples within those sub-groups. Both assumptions are unlikely to hold (Hopewell et al. 2005).

The accuracy of meta-analytic estimates depends on the number samples in the meta-analytic distribution, which depends on sample and study properties, including levels of statistical significance (i.e., the samples in the meta-analytic distribution are unlikely to be perfectly “true” representations of the population). This type of sampling error is called second-order sampling error (Hunter and Schmidt 2004). The smaller the number of samples in the meta-analytic distribution, the higher the chances that the meta-analytic results are influenced by this error.

This does not affect the decision to use the random-effects estimation model for the meta-analytic procedures as the estimation models for the meta-analytic and trim and fill procedures are independent of each other.

The random-effects trim and fill model did not support this finding as zero samples were imputed, yielding results that are identical to the meta-analytic ones (i.e., t&f adj. \( {\bar r_o} \) = .28; t&f adj. 95 % CI = .24–.33).

The random-effects trim and fill model imputed one missing sample, yielding a trim and fill adjusted \( {\bar r_o} \) of .17 (t&f adj. 95 % CI = .03–.30). Given the size of the distribution (k = 8), we did not interpret the results from Egger’s test of the intercept and Begg and Mazumdar’s rank correlation test.

The random-effects trim and fill imputed four samples at the right-hand side of the funnel plot, yielding a trim and fill adjusted observed mean of .26 (t&f adj. 95 % CI = .20–.32).

However, the random-effects trim and fill did not impute any missing samples, leaving the trim and fill adjusted statistics identical to the meta-analytic ones (i.e., t&f adj. \( {\bar r_o} \) = .17; t&f adj. 95 % CI = .12–.22).

The random-effects trim and fill indicated this as well. It imputed 13 samples at the right-hand side of the funnel plot, yielding a trim and fill adjusted observed mean of −.07 (t&f adj. 95 % CI = −.14 to −.01).

The random-effects trim and fill model did not support this finding. This trim and fill model imputed zero samples, yielding results that are identical to the meta-analytic ones (i.e., t&f adj. \( {\bar r_o} \) = 1.09; t&f 95 % CI = .72–1.46).

Samples in the social sciences, including the organizational sciences, typically contain more between-sample heterogeneity than samples in the medical sciences. For instance, the medical sciences tend to use randomized control trials, which are subject to substantially less heterogeneous influences than the study designs predominantly used in the organizational sciences (e.g., field studies). Similarly, heterogeneous influences due to measurement error tend to be substantially less in the medical sciences because variables are often dichotomous (e.g., drug treatment [yes/no], side-effects [yes/no], and death [yes/no]).

Aguinis, H., Pierce, C. A., Bosco, F. A., Dalton, D. R., & Dalton, C. M. (2011). Debunking myths and urban legends about meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 306–331. doi:10.1177/1094428110375720.CrossRef

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Banks, G. C., Batchelor, J. H., & McDaniel, M. A. (2010). Smarter people are (a bit) more symmetrical: A meta-analysis of the relationship between intelligence and fluctuating asymmetry. Intelligence, 38, 393–401. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2010.04.003.CrossRef

Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & Banks, K. P. (2012a). Publication bias: The antagonist of meta-analytic reviews and effective policy making. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 259–277. doi:10.3102/0162373712446144.CrossRef

Banks, G. C., Kepes, S., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012b). Publication bias: A call for improved meta-analytic practice in the organizational sciences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 182–196. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2012.00591.x.CrossRef

Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2011). The kryptonite of evidence-based I-O psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 40–44. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01292.x.CrossRef

Becker, B. J. (1994). Combining significance levels. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 215–230). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Becker, B. J. (2005). The failsafe N or file-drawer number. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 111–126). West Sussex: Wiley.

Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50, 1088–1101. doi:10.2307/2533446.PubMedCrossRef

Berlin, J. A., & Ghersi, D. (2005). Preventing publication bias: Registries and prospective meta-analysis. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 35–48). West Sussex: Wiley.

Bettencourt, B. A., & Miller, N. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422–447. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.3.422.PubMedCrossRef

Blackwell, S. C., Thompson, L., & Refuerzo, J. (2009). Full publication of clinical trials presented at a national maternal-fetal medicine meeting: Is there a publication bias? American Journal of Perinatology, 26, 679–682. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1220786.PubMedCrossRef

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2). Englewood: Biostat.

Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRef

Briner, R. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (2011). Evidence-based I-O psychology: Not there yet. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 4, 3–22. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01287.x.CrossRef

Chan, A.-W., Hróbjartsson, A., Haahr, M. T., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Altman, D. G. (2004). Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291, 2457–2465. doi:10.1001/jama.291.20.2457.PubMedCrossRef

Cooper, H. (2003). Editorial. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 3–9. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.3.CrossRef

Curfman, G. D., Morrissey, S., & Drazen, J. M. (2006). Expression of concern reaffirmed. New England Journal of Medicine, 354, 1193. doi:10.1056/NEJMe068054.PubMedCrossRef

Davis, M. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1, 309–344. doi:10.1177/004839317100100211.CrossRef

Dickersin, K. (1990). The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1385–1389. doi:10.1001/jama.263.10.1385.PubMedCrossRef

Dickersin, K. (2005). Publication bias: Recognizing the problem, understandings its origins and scope, and preventing harm. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 11–34). West Sussex: Wiley.

Duval, S. J. (2005). The “trim and fill” method. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 127–144). West Sussex: Wiley.

Duval, S. J., & Tweedie, R. L. (2000a). A nonparametric “Trim and Fill” method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 89–98. doi:10.2307/2669529.

Duval, S. J., & Tweedie, R. L. (2000b). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463. doi:10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x.PubMedCrossRef

Dwan, K., et al. (2008). Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE, 3, e3081. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.00030.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569.PubMedCrossRef

Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (1998). Bias in location and selection of studies. British Medical Journal, 316, 61–66. doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7124.61.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Evangelou, E., Trikalinos, T. A., & Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Unavailability of online supplementary scientific information from articles published in major journals. The FASEB Journal, 19, 1943–1944. doi:10.1096/fj.05-4784lsf.CrossRef

Evans, S. (1996). Statistician’s comment (to Misleading meta-analysis: “Fail safe N” is a useful mathematical measure of the stability of results by R. Persaud). British Medical Journal, 312, 125.PubMedCentralCrossRef

Ferguson, C. J., & Brannick, M. T. (2011). Publication bias in psychological science: Prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses. Psychological Methods, 17, 120–128. doi:10.1037/a0024445.PubMedCrossRef

Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63, 665–694. doi:10.1348/000711010X502733.PubMedCrossRef

Gigerenzer, G. (2004). Mindless statistics. Journal of Socio-Economics, 33, 587–606. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2004.09.033.CrossRef

Greenhouse, J. B., & Iyengar, S. (2009). Sensitivity analysis and diagnostics. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 417–433). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Greenwald, A. G. (1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 1–20. doi:10.1037/h0076157.CrossRef

Hedges, L. V. (1992). Modeling publication selection effects in meta-analysis. Statistical Science, 7, 246–255. doi:10.1214/ss/1177011364.CrossRef

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.

Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (2005). Selection methods approaches. In H. R. Rothstein, A. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 145–174). West Sussex: Wiley.

Hermelin, E., Lievens, F., & Robertson, I. T. (2007). The validity of assessment centers for the prediction of supervisory performance ratings: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 405–411. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00399.x.CrossRef

Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2009). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions; Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]: The Cochrane Collaboration. www.cochrane-handbook.org.

Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1539–1558. doi:10.1002/sim.1186.PubMedCrossRef

Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Hopewell, S., Clarke, M., & Mallett, S. (2005). Grey literature and systematic reviews. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 48–72). West Sussex: Wiley.

Hopewell, S., Loudon, K., Clarke, M. J., Oxman, A. D., & Dickersin, K. (2009). Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3.

Hopewell, S., McDonald, S., Clarke, M. J., & Egger, M. (2007). Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3.

Hubbard, R., & Armstrong, J. S. (1997). Publication bias against null results. Psychological Reports, 80, 337–338. doi:10.2466/PR0.80.1.337-338.CrossRef

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park: Sage.

Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2, e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611. doi:10.2307/2392366.CrossRef

Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M., & Whetzel, D. L. (2012). Publication bias in the organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods,. doi:10.1177/1094428112452760.

Kisamore, J. L., & Brannick, M. T. (2008). An illustration of the consequences of meta-analysis model choice. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 35–53. doi:10.1177/1094428106287393.CrossRef

Le, H., Oh, I.-S., Shaffer, J., & Schmidt, F. L. (2007). Implications of methodological advances for the practice of personnel selection: How practitioners benefit from meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 6–15.CrossRef

McDaniel, M. A. (2009, April). Cumulative meta-analysis as a publication bias method. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.

McDaniel, M. A., Rothstein, H. R., & Whetzel, D. L. (2006). Publication bias: A case study of four test vendors. Personnel Psychology, 59, 927–953. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00059.x.CrossRef

McNatt, D. B. (2000). Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management: A meta-analysis of the result. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 314–322. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.314.PubMedCrossRef

Moreno, S. G., Sutton, A. J., Turner, E. H., Abrams, K. R., Cooper, N. J., Palmer, T. M., et al. (2009). Novel methods to deal with publication biases: Secondary analysis of antidepressant trials in the FDA trial registry database and related journal publications. British Medical Journal, 339, b2981. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2981.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Palmer, T. M., Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., & Moreno, S. G. (2008). Contour-enhanced funnel plots for meta-analysis. Stata Journal, 8, 242–254.

Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., & Rushton, L. (2008). Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 991–996. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010.PubMedCrossRef

Peters, J., Sutton, A., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., Rushton, L., & Moreno, S. G. (2010). Assessing publication bias in meta-analyses in the presence of between-study heterogeneity. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series A), 173, 575–591. doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2009.00629.x.CrossRef

Quiñones, M. A., Ford, J. K., & Teachout, M. S. (1995). The relationship between work experience and job performance: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 48, 887–910. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01785.x.CrossRef

Renkewitz, F., Fuchs, H. M., & Fiedler, S. (2011). Is there evidence of publication biases in JDM research? Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 870–881.

Robbins, S., Oh, I.-S., Le, H., & Button, C. (2009). Intervention effects on college performance and retention as mediated by motivational, emotional, and social control factors: Integrated meta-analytic path-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1163–1184. doi:10.1037/a0015738.PubMedCrossRef

Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638.CrossRef

Rothstein, H. R. (2012). Accessing relevant literature. In H. Cooper (Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Vol. 1. Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics (pp. 133–144). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rothstein, H. R., & Hopewell, S. (2009). Grey literature. In H. M. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 103–126). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005a). Publication bias in meta-analyses. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 1–7). West Sussex: Wiley.CrossRef

Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005b). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments. West Sussex: Wiley.CrossRef

Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 419–489). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Scandura, T. A., & Williams, E. A. (2000). Research methodology in management: Current practices, trends, and implications for future research. The Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1248–1264. doi:10.2307/1556348.CrossRef

Schmidt, F. L., & Le, H. (2005). Hunter & Schmidt’s Meta-analysis programs (Version 1.1). The University of Iowa, IA.

Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I.-S., & Hayes, T. (2009). Fixed versus random effects models in meta-analysis: Model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 97–128. doi:10.1348/000711007X255327.PubMedCrossRef

Schopfel, J. (2006). Observations on the future of grey literature. Grey Journal, 2, 67–76.

Schulze, R. (2004). Meta-analysis: A comparison of approaches. Cambridge: Hogrefe & Huber.

Smith, G. D., & Egger, M. (1994). Who benefits from medical interventions? British Medical Journal, 308, 72–74. doi:10.1136/bmj.308.6921.72.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Song, F., Easterwood, A., Gilbody, S., Duley, L., & Sutton, A. J. (2000). Publication and other selection biases in systematic reviews. Health Technology, 4, 1–115. doi:10.3310/hta4100.

Song, F., et al. (2010). Dissemination and publication of research findings: An updated review of related biases. Health Technology Assessment, 14, 1–220. doi:10.3310/hta14080.

Sterling, T. D., & Rosenbaum, W. L. (1995). Publication decisions revisited: The effect of the outcome of statistical tests on the decision to publish and vice versa. American Statistician, 49, 108–112. doi:http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00031305.1995.10476125.

Sterne, J. A., & Egger, M. (2005). Regression methods to detect publication bias and other bias in meta-analysis. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 99–110). West Sussex: Wiley.

Sterne, J. A., Gavaghan, D., & Egger, M. (2005). The funnel plot. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 75–98). West Sussex: Wiley.

Sterne, J. A., et al. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 342, d4002–d4010. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002.CrossRef

Sutton, A. J. (2005). Evidence concerning the consequences of publication and related biases. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 175–192). West Sussex: Wiley.

Sutton, A. J. (2009). Publication bias. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 435–452). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., Lau, J., & Olkin, I. (2003). Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 2113–2126. doi:10.1002/sim.1461.PubMedCrossRef

Torgerson, C. J. (2006). Publication bias: The Achilles’ heel of systematic reviews? British Journal of Educational Studies, 54, 89–102. doi:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2006.00332.x/abstract.CrossRef

Trikalinos, T. A., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Assessing the evolution of effect sizes over time. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 241–259). West Sussex: Wiley.

Turner, E. H., Matthews, A. M., Linardatos, E., Tell, R. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2008). Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 252–260. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa065779.PubMedCrossRef

Vevea, J. L., & Woods, C. M. (2005). Publication bias in research synthesis: Sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions. Psychological Methods, 10, 428–443. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.10.4.428.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Avoiding Bias in Publication Bias Research: The Value of “Null” Findings
verfasst von: Sven Kepes
George C. Banks
In-Sue Oh
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2014
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology / Ausgabe 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0889-3268
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-353X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-012-9279-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2014

Constraints for Some, Opportunities for Others? Interactive and Indirect Effects of Machiavellianism and Organizational Constraints on Task Performance Ratings

Tailoring Web-Based Recruiting Messages: Individual Differences in the Persuasiveness of Affective and Cognitive Messages

Honesty-Humility and Perceptions of Organizational Politics in Predicting Workplace Outcomes

Effects of Personalized Versus Generic Implementation of an Intra-Organizational Online Survey on Psychological Anonymity and Response Behavior: A Field Experiment

Null Results in Assessing Survey Score Comparability: Illustrating Measurement Invariance Using Item Response Theory

When is Nothing Something? Editorial for the Null Results Special Issue of Journal of Business and Psychology

Premium Partner