Abstract
Reliability generalization studies have provided estimates of the mean reliability coefficients and examined factors that explain the variability in the reliability estimates across studies for many different tests and measures. Different authors have used different data analyses to do such meta-analyses, and little research has addressed whether some methods are more accurate than others. Three methods of meta-analysis for reliability data were compared using Monte Carlo techniques. The meta-analytic methods were those described by Hedges and Vevea, Hunter and Schmidt, and Vacha-Haase. The results suggested that a combination of methods worked best and that Hunter and Schmidt's method should be used to estimate the mean and random-effect variance component, but weighted regression should be used to model continuous moderators.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
