| Abstract: | Presents a framework for studying the influence of reporting quality on meta-analytic results in which 3 sources of reporting deficiency are identified: quality (adequacy) of publicizing, quality of macrolevel reporting, and quality of the review process in a different way. To assess the influence of reporting quality empirically, 25 reports were sampled from the psychotherapy meta-analysis reported by M. L. Smith et al (1980) and recorded by the present authors. Two sources of information pertinent to reporting quality were established: interrater reliabilities and confidence judgments. Reanalyses incorporating reliability corrections and confidence judgments suggested that deficient reporting injects considerable noise into meta-analytic data and can lead to spurious conclusions. (43 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
