| Abstract: | This study deals with some of the judgmental factors involved in selecting effect sizes from within the studies that enter a meta-analysis. Particular attention is paid to the conceptual redundancy rule that Smith, Glass, and Miller (1980) used in their study of the effectiveness of psychotherapy for deciding which effect sizes should and should not be counted in determining an overall effect size. Data from a random sample of 25 studies from Smith et al.'s (1980) population of psychotherapy outcome studies were first recoded and then reanalyzed meta-analytically. Using the conceptual redundancy rule, three coders independently coded effect sizes and identified more than twice as many of them per study as did Smith et al. Moreover, the treatment effect estimates associated with this larger sample of effects ranged between .30 and .50, about half the size claimed by Smith et al. Analyses of other rules for selecting effect sizes showed that average effect estimates also varied with these rules. Such results indicate that the average effect estimates derived from meta-analyses may depend heavily on judgmental factors that enter into how effect sizes are selected within each of the individual studies considered relevant to a meta-analysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
