This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lipsey, M. W. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Those Confounded Moderators in Meta-Analysis: Good, Bad, and Ugly

Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies; Center for Evaluation Research and Methodology

One of the more revealing aspects of meta-analysis is the relationship between effect sizes and moderator variables representing differences among studies in their methods, samples, and interventions. However, interesting moderator variables are generally related to each other as well as to effect sizes. This confounding among moderator variables can make the results of any analysis focusing on a single moderator variable misleading. Despite the ambiguity of such results, this form of analysis is common in meta-analytic studies of intervention. The hazards and complexities of investigating and interpreting confounded moderator variables are illustrated in this article by the author's examining the difference in effect sizes associated with randomized versus nonrandomized designs in a large meta-analytic database of delinquency intervention studies.

Key Words: moderator variables • meta-analysis • juvenile delinquency • intervention • research design • random assignment

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 587, No. 1, 69-81 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/0002716202250791


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. M. Saunders, C. N. Goldenberg, and R. Gallimore Increasing Achievement by Focusing Grade-Level Teams on Improving Classroom Learning: A Prospective, Quasi-Experimental Study of Title I Schools American Educational Research Journal, December 1, 2009; 46(4): 1006 - 1033. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. S. Van Horn, K. E. Green, and M. Martinussen Survey Response Rates and Survey Administration in Counseling and Clinical Psychology: A Meta-Analysis Educational and Psychological Measurement, June 1, 2009; 69(3): 389 - 403. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. S. Schwalbe A Meta-Analysis of Juvenile Justice Risk Assessment Instruments: Predictive Validity by Gender Criminal Justice and Behavior, November 1, 2008; 35(11): 1367 - 1381. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. D Borman, R. E Slavin, A. C. Cheung, A. M Chamberlain, N. A Madden, and B. Chambers The National Randomized Field Trial of Success for All: Second-Year Outcomes American Educational Research Journal, January 1, 2005; 42(4): 673 - 696. [Abstract] [PDF]

				F. Losel and A. Beelmann Effects of Child Skills Training in Preventing Antisocial Behavior: A Systematic Review of Randomized Evaluations The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1, 2003; 587(1): 84 - 109. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Petrosino Standards for Evidence and Evidence for Standards: The Case of School-Based Drug Prevention The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1, 2003; 587(1): 180 - 207. [Abstract] [PDF]