1 / 17

Change in schedule…

Change in schedule…. Website currently says… August 5 th – first draft August 19 th – second draft Lets have instead… August 19 th – first draft. (5) Other calculations and tables/graphs. Overall Strategy. (1) Average ES In-text: Average, range, total number Heterogeneity

chelsa
Download Presentation

Change in schedule…

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Change in schedule… • Website currently says… • August 5th – first draft • August 19th – second draft • Lets have instead… • August 19th – first draft

  2. (5) Other calculations and tables/graphs

  3. Overall Strategy (1) Average ES • In-text: • Average, range, total number • Heterogeneity • Fail-safe N • Unweighted (and difference test to weighted) • Outliers (and difference test to weighted after removing outliers) • Charts/Tables: • Descending order • Stem-and-leaf • Funnel Plot • Boxplot

  4. (1) Average ES: in-text • The average weighted effect size was .1221 (CI = .1139, .1302, z = 29.07, p< .001). • The range of effect sizes is .78 to -.61 across 296 total effect sizes. • The heterogeneity test for the weighted effect size was significant (Qw (293) = 1145.87, p< .001), indicating that there was substantial variation within the weighted effect sizes.

  5. Table: Descending order of ES

  6. Chart: Stem-and-leaf

  7. (1) Average ES: in-text • A fail-safe N was calculated to ascertain the number of new, unpublished, or unretrieved studies required to reduce the significance of this averaged effect size to non-signifcance (Rosenthal, 1991), fail-safe N = 108,195. • page 104-105 for Rosenthal, 1991

  8. (1) Average ES: in-text • A fail-safe N can also be calculated to ascertain the number of new, unpublished, or unretrieved studies required to reduce this averaged effect size to a specific level (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). To reduce the averaged effect size to a specified level of .1, the fail-safe N = 65, which indicates that it would take an additional 65 studies with an effect size of 0 to reduce the current meta-analyzed effect size of .1221 to .1. To reduce the average effect size to a specified level of .05, the fail-safe N = 424. To reduce the average effect size all the way to 0, the fail-safe N = 358,680. • Page 166 of Lipsey/Wilson

  9. (1) Average ES: in-text • Unweighted • “The unweighted effect size average is .1451 (CI = .1339, .1563, z = 25.14, p< .001). “ • Difference Test to Weighted • “The test of the differences between the two dependent effect sizes was non-significant, z = .41, p = .69. In other words, the weighted effect size was not influenced by particular sample sizes that were extremely large or small. “ • http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/rpop.html

  10. Chart: Funnel Plot

  11. (1) Average ES: in-text • Outlier analysis • “Outlier analysis determines the existence of extreme effect sizes, as compared to the analysis above which tested the influence of extreme sample sizes. Chart 3 shows the boxplot for the weighted effect sizes.” • “Eliminating the outliers produces a weighted effect size of .1137 (CI = .1054, .1219, z = 26.89, p< .001).” • Difference test to weighted after removing outliers • “The test of the differences between the weighted effect sizes with and without the outliers was non-significant, z = .15, p = .88. Thus, the weighted effect size was not significantly influenced by outliers.”

  12. Chart: Boxplot

  13. Overall Strategy (2) Moderators • In-text: • Interpreting the data and comparing/contrasting • Charts/Tables: • ES of Moderators • Categorical Moderator Data • Continuous Moderator Data • 95% Error Bar Chart • Multivariate Data

  14. Table: Groupings of the ES

  15. Table: Moderators

  16. Chart: Error bars (95% CI)

  17. Table: Multivariate

More Related