The Claim

The blended random-effects meta-analysis method based on Schmidt and Hunter (2015), which uses random-effects study weights, is associated with higher accuracy in estimating population effect sizes and heterogeneity compared to other random-effects meta-analysis methods, although the magnitude of improvement is small.

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

What the research says

Not yet evaluated

We are still looking at what the research says.

Supports
0score
Challenges
0score

These are independent scores, not a percentage. Higher-grade studies count more, so a single strong opposing study can outweigh several weaker ones.

Quantitative
1 study reviewed
In plain English

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.

See the scientific wording

The blended random-effects meta-analysis method based on Schmidt and Hunter (2015) with random-effects study weights is associated with relatively higher accuracy in estimating population effect sizes and heterogeneity compared to other random-effects methods, though the actual differences are small.

What the research says

1 study

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

    The study tested different ways to analyze research results and found that the method mentioned in the claim works slightly better than others, just like the claim says.

Score breakdown, mechanism chain, raw evidence, ideal studies needed & 1 supporting studies

Fit Body Science verdict — we translate health claims into clear verdicts backed by peer-reviewed research.

Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional before making health decisions.