Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Organizational Research Methods
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1094428106287393v1
1094428106287393v2
11/1/35    most recent
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 Similar articles in Web of Science
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 Kisamore, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Brannick, M. T.
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?

An Illustration of the Consequences of Meta-Analysis Model Choice

Jennifer L. Kisamore

University of Oklahoma in Tulsa

Michael T. Brannick

University of South Florida

Fixed- and random-effects models represent two different approaches to analyzing and understanding data with meta-analysis. The current article describes the results of a two-part study to illustrate the effect of choice of meta-analytic model on study conclusions. Part 1 illustrates the effect of model choice by analyzing data simulated to conform to either fixed- or random-effects scenarios with both fixed- and random-effects methods of data analysis. Part 2 uses two published meta-analyses to show that methodological choices, in this case mainly the choice of fixed- or random-effects models, affect estimates both of mean effect size and of the random-effects variance component (REVC). Overall, results suggest that random-effects procedures represent the best initial choice when conducting a meta-analysis.

Key Words: meta-analysis • research synthesis • research methods • Pygmalion effect

This version was published on January 1, 2008

Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 11, No. 1, 35-53 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1094428106287393
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
H. Aguinis, C. A. Pierce, and S. A. Culpepper
Scale Coarseness as a Methodological Artifact: Correcting Correlation Coefficients Attenuated From Using Coarse Scales
Organizational Research Methods, October 1, 2009; 12(4): 623 - 652.
[Abstract] [PDF]