An exercise in mega-silliness.

Eysenck, H.J.

doi:10.1037/0003-066x.33.5.517.a

Cited by 403 publications

(155 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

147

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Viewing the Smith et al meta-analysis this way, the argument "garbage-in-garbage-out" (Eysenck, 1978) is not only trite but beside the point. Such a judgment reveals that its author can not conceive of treating design properties as something that can be empirically studied rather than merely debated.…”

Section: The Quality-of-study Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such a judgment reveals that its author can not conceive of treating design properties as something that can be empirically studied rather than merely debated. In this respect, Eysenck's (1978) claim that Smith and Glass advocated "low standards" for research quality and "abandoned scholarship" can be understood as the opinion of one to whom methodology is dogma.…”

Section: The Quality-of-study Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The publication of the meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome research attracted praise (Abeles, 1981;Frances & Clarkin, 1981;Simon, 1981) and condemnation (Crown, 1981;Eysenck, 1978;Kazrin, Durac, & Agteros, 1979;Presby, 1978;Rachman & Wilson, 1980). That this one study could have prompted such different evaluation (Eysenck-"an exercise in mega-silliness"; Simon-"Classics in science are rare, but I predict this volume owns a distinguished destiny.")…”

Section: Responses To the Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An apology for research integration in the study of psychotherapy.

Glass¹,

Kliegl²

1983

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Criticisms of the integration of psychotherapy-outcome research performed by Smith, Glass, and Miller (1980) are reviewed and answered. An attempt is made to account for the conflicting points of view in this disagreement in terms of certain issues that have engaged philosophers of science in the 20th century. It is hoped that, in passing, something useful is learned about research of many types on psychotherapy.We wish to acknowledge the helpful criticisms of Robert Cummins, Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado, who assisted in the early stages of thinking about this article.Requests for reprints should be addressed to Gene V Glass,

show abstract

Section: The Quality-of-study Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Quality-of-study Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Responses To the Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An apology for research integration in the study of psychotherapy.

Glass¹,

Kliegl²

1983

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Those on the receiving end have rejected what they see as exercises in 'mega-silliness' 16 , and the authors of a highly distinguished series of systematic reviews of care during pregnancy and childhood 17 have been dubbed as terrorists ('an obstetrical Baader-Meinhof gang' 18 ). Some statisticians think that metaanalysis 'represents the unacceptable face of statisticism' 19 and to clinicians objecting to the findings of meta-analyses 'a tool has become a weapon' 20 .…”

Section: Problems and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uses and abuses of meta-analysis

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Meta-analysis, the statistical combination of results from several studies to produce a single estimate of the effect of a treatment, continues to attract controversy. We illustrate the potentials and pitfalls of meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Cumulative meta-analysis demonstrates that this technique could prevent delays in the introduction of effective treatments. Meta-analyses are, however, liable to numerous biases both at the level of the individual trial ('garbage in, garbage out' ) and the dissemination of trial results (publication bias). We argue that meta-analysis should be performed only within the framework of systematic reviews -that is, reviews prepared using a systematic approach to minimise bias and address the combinability of studies. Many of the groups ... are far too small to allow of any

show abstract

“…There have been many critics of meta-analysis (for example, Eysenck 1978, Shapiro 1994, Feinstein 1995, Berk and Freedman 2003. 16 The standard literature on meta-analysis is based on data from an experimental design using a common treatment with the same effect size metric based on means, response ratios and odds-or risk-ratios; estimates derived from multivariate methods, typically from studies using quasi-experimental data, can be included in meta-analysis, but, as noted above, because the different studies will often not have the same sets of covariates, the interpretation of results becomes more problematic (Becker and Wu 2007).…”

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing ‘what works’ in international development: meta-analysis for sophisticated dummies

Duvendack

Hombrados²,

Palmer-Jones

et al. 2012

Journal of Development Effectiveness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(2012) Assessing 'what works' in international development: metaanalysis for sophisticated dummies, Journal of Development Effectiveness, 4:3, 456-471, DOI: 10.1080/19439342.2012 Many studies of development interventions are individually unable to provide convincing conclusions because of low statistical significance, small size, limited geographical purview and so forth. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis are forms of research synthesis that combine studies of adequate methodological quality to produce more convincing conclusions. In the social sciences, study designs, types of analysis and methodological quality vary tremendously. Combining these studies for meta-analysis entails more demanding risk of bias assessments to ensure that only studies with largely appropriate methodological characteristics are included, and sensitivity analysis should be performed. In this article, we discuss assessing risk of bias and meta-analysis using such diverse studies.

show abstract

An exercise in mega-silliness.

Cited by 403 publications

References 2 publications

An apology for research integration in the study of psychotherapy.

An apology for research integration in the study of psychotherapy.

Uses and abuses of meta-analysis

Assessing ‘what works’ in international development: meta-analysis for sophisticated dummies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About