An old but popular way of combining study results isn't as good as some newer methods when it comes to accuracy in computer simulations that fix common measurement errors.

Evidence from Studies

Supporting (1)

0

Community contributions welcome

0

A Comparative Evaluation of Psychometric Meta‐Analysis Methods in Management and Applied Psychology: Toward a Nuanced Understanding of Their Accuracy

Computational/Algorithm Study

The study tested different ways to analyze research results and found that while one popular method works well, newer versions work slightly better, just like the claim says.

Contradicting (0)

0

Community contributions welcome

No contradicting evidence found

Gold Standard Evidence Needed

According to GRADE and EBM methodology, here is what ideal scientific evidence would look like to definitively prove or disprove this specific claim, ordered from strongest to weakest evidence.

Source Study

A Comparative Evaluation of Psychometric Meta‐Analysis Methods in Management and Applied Psychology: Toward a Nuanced Understanding of Their Accuracy

0

DOI: 10.1111/peps.70001

Similar Assertions

This math method for combining study results seems to give slightly more accurate answers than other similar methods when figuring out the true effect across many studies.

0

81%

Some math methods for combining study results work better than others when trying to understand how much results vary — ones that adjust for more uncertainty give clearer answers, according to computer simulations in psychology research.

0

79%

Random-effects meta-analysis is better than fixed-effect at guessing the true average result across different psychology and management studies, especially when fixing common data problems.

0

78%