Abstract
Thirty-nine meta-analyses obtained from the past 10 years of communication research (1997–2007) were reanalyzed using fixed effects (FE), random effects (RE), and Hunter and Schmidt (HS) meta-analytic methods. The majority of studies (62%) reported use of the HS model in the original analysis. Differences identified between models include (a) greater propensity for Type 1 error under the FE approach, (b) episodes of inflated effect size (ES) under the RE approach, and (c) high levels of heterogeneity in population ESs across studies. Recommendations are made for scholars to appropriately choose and implement meta-analytic models in future research.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
