# Summary the Power, Potential, and Perils of Meta-Analysis: a Workshop on Integrative Reviews

##### Citation:

*
Steven P. Brown (1994) ,"Summary the Power, Potential, and Perils of Meta-Analysis: a Workshop on Integrative Reviews", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 21, eds. Chris T. Allen and Deborah Roedder John, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 353.
*

THE POWER, POTENTIAL, AND PERILS OF META-ANALYSIS: A WORKSHOP ON INTEGRATIVE REVIEWS

The first paper, "What Do Data Really Mean?," was delivered by Frank L. Schmidt of the Department of Management and Organization, University of Iowa. Professor Schmidt, one of the world's leading experts on meta-analysis, described the limitations of statistical significance testing and pointed out ways that meta-analysis overcomes these limitations. He observed that the assumption often made by researchers that error rates in their research approximate the alpha levels specified for Type I error is erroneous. Using examples based on sample sizes typical of consumer research, he showed that Type II error is a much more serious hazard, with rates exceeding .50. He also criticized the assumption that statistically non-significant effects are equal to zero, noting the failure to find an effect may usually be attributable to insufficient power in the study design and that non-significant effects are usually __not__ equal to zero. Professor Schmidt concluded that statistical significance testing is "an addiction" that researchers should fight to break.

The second paper, "Meta-Analysis for Model Estimation," was delivered by Professor Donald R. Lehmann of Columbia University. Professor Lehmann discussed the uses of meta-analysis for establishing prior probabilities regarding the strength of relationships of interest in situations where data are sparse or expensive (e.g., new product forecasting). In such situations, estimates of patterns (e.g., life-cycle shapes) or relations among variables (e.g., advertising to awareness or attitude) often rely on other "relevant" information, usually estimates based on prior studies. He summarized some past work suggesting that generalization across products and situations is the rule rather than the exception. He concluded by suggesting how to perform meta-analysis across studies even when the individual studies do not contain sufficient data to allow for estimation of a relationship on a study-by-study basis.

The session's final paper, "Validity Threats in Meta-Analysis," was delivered by Murali Chandrashekaran of the University of Cincinnati (co-authored with Beth A. Walker of Arizona State University). This paper focused on two statistical threats to validity in regression of effect sizes from meta-analysis on potential moderator variables, namely heteroskedasticity and truncation. The paper proposed a maximum-likelihood estimation technique that yields greater power and efficiency than OLS estimation. A Monte Carlo study compared estimation methods and found the maximum-likelihood technique superior.

Discussion of the three papers was provided by Steven P. Brown of Southern Methodist University. He reviewed a number of assumptions commonly made by consumer researchers (e.g., that error rates approximate alpha rates for Type I error, that Type I error is the type of error that researchers should be most concerned with, that larger effect sizes are in some sense "better," that the null hypothesis is the appropriate test in most studies, and that meta-analysis is useful only for summarizing prior research results but not for developing or testing theory) and reviewed how the papers had shown these assumptions to be shaky at best and more often erroneous. He concluded that the three papers in sequence addressed issues related to the "power, potential, and perils" of meta-analysis as per the session's billing.

----------------------------------------

##### Authors

Steven P. Brown, Southern Methodist University

##### Volume

NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 21 | 1994

##### Share Proceeding

## Featured papers

See More#### Featured

### Alternative “Facts”: The Effects of Narrative Processing on the Acceptance of Factual Information

Anne Hamby, Hofstra University

David Brinberg, Virginia Tech, USA

#### Featured

### E10. Sustainable Initiatives: Cultural Identity, Regulatory Focus, and Construal Perspective

Ekaterina Salnikova, Aarhus University

Yuliya Strizhakova, Rutgers University, USA

Klaus G Grunert, Aarhus University

#### Featured

### More than just a number: The negative effect of 100% claims

Nira Munichor, Bar-Ilan University

Liat Levontin, Technion University, Israel