Skip to main content

Generalizations from Meta-analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Meta-Analysis

Part of the book series: Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences ((SSBS))

  • 5362 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter discusses the kinds of inferences and generalizations we can make from a meta-analysis. The chapter reviews the framework outlined by Shadish et al. (2002) for meta-analysis, and provides examples from two recent syntheses that had an influence on policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allington, R.L. 2006. Reading lessons and federal policymaking: An overview and introduction to the special issue. The Elementary School Journal 107: 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, W.A. 2010. Benefits of screening mammography. Journal of the American Medical Association 303(2): 168–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjurstam, N., L. Bjorneld, J. Warwick, et al. 2003. The Gothenburg breast screening trial. Cancer 97(10): 2387–2396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camilli, G., P.M. Wolfe, and M.L. Smith. 2006. Meta-analysis and reading policy: Perspectives on teaching children to read. The Elementary School Journal 107: 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D.T. 1957. Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin 54(4): 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L.J. 1982. Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L.C., S. Nunes, S. Stahl, and D. Willows. 2001. Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 71: 393–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garan, E.M. 2001. Beyond the smoke and mirrors: A critique of the National Reading Panel report on phonics. Phi Delta Kappan 87(7): 500–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammill, D.D., and H.L. Swanson. 2006. The National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis of phonics instruction: Another point of view. The Elementary School Journal 107: 17–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, J.P.T., and S. Green. 2011. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Oxford, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration.

    Google Scholar 

  • Littell J.H., M. Campbell, S. Green, and B. Toews. 2005. Multisystemic therapy for social, emotional and behavioral problems in youth aged 10–17. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (4). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004797.pub4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matt, G.E., and T.D. Cook. 2009. Threats to the validity of generalized inferences. In The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, ed. H. Cooper, L.V. Hedges, and J.C. Valentine, 537–560. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, S.M., H. Cuckle, A. Evans, et al. 2006. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality at 10 years’ follow-up: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 386(9552): 2053–2060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, A.M. 2010. Mammography screening for breast cancer: A view from 2 worlds. Journal of the American Medical Association 303(2): 166–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Reading Panel. 2000. Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching chidren to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Rockvill: NICHD Clearinghouse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H.D., K. Tyne, A. Naik, C. Bougatsos, B. Chan, P. Nygren, and L. Humphrey. 2009. Screening for breast cancer: Systematic evidence review update for the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force (trans: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality). Rockville, MD: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, P.D. 2004. The reading wars. Educational Policy 18: 216–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., N.K. Duke, and E.C. Boling. 2004. The educational science and scientifically based instruction we need: Lessons from reading research and policymaking. Harvard Educational Review 74: 30–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S.W., and A.S. Bryk. 1985. Empirical Bayes meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics 10: 75–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W.R., T.D. Cook, and D.T. Campbell. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Preventive Services Task Force. 2002. Screening for breast cancer: Recommendations and rationale. Annals of Internal Medicine 137(5 Part 1): 344–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolf, S.H. 2010. The 2009 breast cancer screening recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force. Journal of the American Medical Association 303(2): 162–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pigott, T.D. (2012). Generalizations from Meta-analysis. In: Advances in Meta-Analysis. Statistics for Social and Behavioral Sciences. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2278-5_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics