Estimates of Between-Study Heterogeneity for 705 Meta-Analyses Reported in Psychological Bulletin From 1990–2013

Sara van Erp; Josine Verhagen; Raoul P. P. P. Grasman; Eric-Jan Wagenmakers

doi:10.5334/jopd.33

Abstract

We present a data set containing 705 between-study heterogeneity estimates τ2 as reported in 61 articles published in Psychological Bulletin from 1990–2013. The data set also includes information about the number and type of effect sizes, the Q- and I²-statistics, and publication bias. The data set is stored in the Open Science Framework repository (https://osf.io/wyhve/) and can be used for several purposes: (1) to compare a specific heterogeneity estimate to the distribution of between-study heterogeneity estimates in psychology; (2) to construct an informed prior distribution for the between-study heterogeneity in psychology; (3) to obtain realistic population values for Monte Carlo simulations investigating the performance of meta-analytic methods.

Funding statement: This research was supported by the ERC project “Bayes or Bust”.

References

Pullenayegum E M “An informed reference prior for between-study heterogeneity in meta-analyses of binary outcomes” Statistics in Medicine 2011 30 26 3082 3094 10.1002/sim.4326
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Rhodes K M Turner R M Higgins J P “Predictive distributions were developed for the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of continuous outcome data” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2015 68 1 52 60 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.012
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Turner R M Davey J Clarke M J Thompson S G Higgins J P “Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the cochrane database of systematic reviews” International Journal of Epidemiology 2012 41 3 818 827 10.1093/ije/dys041
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lipsey M W Wilson D B “The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis” American Psychologist 1993 48 12 1181 1209 10.1037/0003-066X.48.12.1181
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schmidt F L Oh I-S Hayes T L “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 2009 62 1 97 128 10.1348/000711007X255327
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
“Psychological bulletin.” 2005 http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/bul/?tab=1 Accessed: April 6, 2017
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Viechtbauer W “Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model” Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 2005 30 3 261 293 10.3102/10769986030003261
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
DerSimonian R Laird N “Meta-analysis in clinical trials” Controlled Clinical Trials 1986 7 3 177 188 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Higgins J P T Thompson S G “Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis” Statistics in Medicine 2002 21 11 1539 1558 10.1002/sim.1186
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Gronau Q F van Erp S Heck D W Cesario J Jonas K J Wagenmakers E-J “A bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis of the power pose effect with informed and default priors: the case of felt power” Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology 2017 2 1 123 138 10.1080/23743603.2017.1326760
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article

Estimates of Between-Study Heterogeneity for 705 Meta-Analyses Reported in Psychological Bulletin From 1990–2013

Abstract

Paradigm

My account