journal article Oct 01, 2016

Mini Meta‐Analysis of Your Own Studies: Some Arguments on Why and a Primer on How

View at Publisher Save 10.1111/spc3.12267
Abstract
Abstract

We outline the need to, and provide a guide on how to, conduct a meta‐analysis on one's own studies within a manuscript. Although conducting a “mini meta” within one's manuscript has been argued for in the past, this practice is still relatively rare and adoption is slow. We believe two deterrents are responsible. First, researchers may not think that it is legitimate to do a meta‐analysis on a small number of studies. Second, researchers may think a meta‐analysis is too complicated to do without expert knowledge or guidance. We dispel these two misconceptions by (1) offering arguments on why researchers should be encouraged to do mini metas, (2) citing previous articles that have conducted such analyses to good effect, and (3) providing a user‐friendly guide on calculating some meta‐analytic procedures that are appropriate when there are only a few studies. We provide formulas for calculating effect sizes and converting effect sizes from one metric to another (e.g., from Cohen's
d
to
r
), as well as annotated Excel spreadsheets and a step‐by‐step guide on how to conduct a simple meta‐analysis. A series of related studies can be strengthened and better understood if accompanied by a mini meta‐analysis.
Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References
53
[2]
Borenstein M. (2005)
[4]
A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis

Michael Borenstein, Larry V. Hedges, Julian P.T. Higgins et al.

Research Synthesis Methods 10.1002/jrsm.12
[8]
Cohen J. (1988)
[9]
A power primer.

Jacob Cohen

Psychological Bulletin 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
[10]
Cooper H. (2009)
[23]
Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index?

Tania B. Huedo-Medina, Julio Sánchez-Meca, Fulgencio Marín-Martínez et al.

Psychological Methods 10.1037/1082-989x.11.2.193
[26]
Lai C. K.
[31]
Lipsey M. W. (2001)
[33]
McNemar Q. (1962)
[35]
Mosteller F. M. (1954)
[39]
The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.

Robert Rosenthal

Psychological Bulletin 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
[41]
Rosenthal R. (1979)
[42]
Rosenthal R. (2008)
[43]
Rosenthal R. (2000)
[45]
Rosnow R. L. "Effect sizes: Why, when, and how to use them" Journal of Psychology (2009)
[48]
Shadish W. R. (2009)

Showing 50 of 53 references

Cited By
760
The transparency dilemma: How AI disclosure erodes trust

Oliver Schilke, Martin Reimann · 2025

Organizational Behavior and Human D...
European Journal of Social Psycholo...
The Measurement of Racial Colorblindness

Bernard E. Whitley, Andrew Luttrell · 2022

Personality and Social Psychology B...
Frontiers in Psychology
American Political Science Review
Social Psychology of Education
Seven Easy Steps to Open Science

Sophia Crüwell, Johnny van Doorn · 2019

Zeitschrift für Psychologie
Personality and Social Psychology B...
Advances in Methods and Practices i...
Metrics
760
Citations
53
References
Details
Published
Oct 01, 2016
Vol/Issue
10(10)
Pages
535-549
License
View
Cite This Article
Jin X. Goh, Judith A. Hall, Robert Rosenthal (2016). Mini Meta‐Analysis of Your Own Studies: Some Arguments on Why and a Primer on How. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535-549. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267
Related

You May Also Like

An Introduction to Latent Class Growth Analysis and Growth Mixture Modeling

Tony Jung, K. A. S. Wickrama · 2007

2,561 citations

Mediation Analysis in Social Psychology: Current Practices and New Recommendations

Derek D. Rucker, Kristopher J. Preacher · 2011

1,817 citations

The Intention–Behavior Gap

Paschal Sheeran, Thomas L. Webb · 2016

1,571 citations

The Dark Triad of Personality: A 10 Year Review

Adrian Furnham, Steven C. Richards · 2013

1,114 citations