Factors influencing racial comparisons of self-esteem: A quantitative review.

Research on racial comparisons of self-esteem was examined. Early research in this area, exemplified by the doll studies of racial preference, was viewed as demonstrating that Blacks have less self-regard than Whites. However, a meta-analytic synthesis of 261 comparisons, based largely on self-esteem scales and involving more than half a million respondents, revealed higher scores for Black than for White children, adolescents, and young adults. This analysis further revealed that the direction and magnitude of racial differences are influenced by such demographic characteristics as participant age and socioeconomic status, as well as by characteristics of the measuring instruments. Many findings—for example, that the self-esteem advantage for Black respondents increases with age and is related to the sex composition of the sample—underscore the need for long-term longitudinal studies of self-esteem development in male and female members of both racial groups. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Explicating methods in reviews of race and self-esteem: Reply to Twenge and Crocker (2002).

A recent research synthesis by the authors (B. Gray-Little & A. R. Hafdahl, 2000) reported a self-esteem advantage for African American relative to White children and adolescents. In their partial replication, comment, and extension, J. M. Twenge and J. Crocker (2002) explained some differences between the 2 reviews by emphasizing their larger sample size. In this reply, the authors note important differences not only in sample size, but also in sampling strategy and statistical analyses. Different standards were used for judging the quality of data for calculating an effect size and for determining relevance of the samples to the hypotheses. Furthermore, the authors question certain of Twenge and Crocker's statistical procedures, particularly their regression and correlation analyses relating moderator variables to effect size. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Meta-analysis of correlations revisited: Attempted replication and extension of Field's (2001) simulation studies.

In 2 Monte Carlo studies of fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis for correlations, A. P. Field (2001) ostensibly evaluated Hedges–Olkin–Vevea Fisher-? and Schmidt–Hunter Pearson-r estimators and tests in 120 conditions. Some authors have cited those results as evidence not to meta-analyze Fisher-? correlations, especially with heterogeneous correlation parameters. The present attempt to replicate Field's simulations included comparisons with analytic values as well as results for efficiency and confidence-interval coverage. Field's results under homogeneity were mostly replicable, but those under heterogeneity were not: The latter exhibited up to over .17 more bias than ours and, for tests of the mean correlation and homogeneity, respectively, nonnull rejection rates up to .60 lower and .65 higher. Changes to Field's observations and conclusions are recommended, and practical guidance is offered regarding simulation evidence and choices among methods. Most cautions about poor performance of Fisher-?methods are largely unfounded, especially with a more appropriate ?-to-r transformation. The Appendix gives a computer program for obtaining Pearson-r moments from a normal Fisher-? distribution, which is used to demonstrate distortion due to direct ?-to-r transformation of a mean Fisher-? correlation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)