Improving the reporting quality of reliability generalization meta‐analyses: The REGEMA checklist

Sánchez‐Meca, Julio; Martínez, Faustino Cavas; López-López, José A; Núñez, Rosa María Núñez; Rubio‐Aparicio, María; López-García, Juan José; López‐Pina, José Antonio; Blázquez-Rincón, Desirée; López-Ibáñez, Carmen; López-Nicolás, Rubén

doi:10.1002/jrsm.1487

Cited by 57 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 100 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Use well-established, up-to-date reporting guidelines intended for meta-analyses such as: the recently updated PRISMA 2020 (Page et al, 2021); the focused-on reliability generalization meta-analyses REGEMA (Sánchez-Meca et al, 2021); the focused-on non-intervention studies NIRO-SR (Topor et al, 2020), for example.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-review of transparency and reproducibility-related reporting practices in published meta-analyses on clinical psychological interventions (2000–2020)

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meta-analysis is a powerful and important tool to synthesize the literature about a research topic. Like other kinds of research, meta-analyses must be reproducible to be compliant with the principles of the scientific method. Furthermore, reproducible meta-analyses can be easily updated with new data and reanalysed applying new and more refined analysis techniques. We attempted to empirically assess the prevalence of transparency and reproducibility-related reporting practices in published meta-analyses from clinical psychology by examining a random sample of 100 meta-analyses. Our purpose was to identify the key points that could be improved, with the aim of providing some recommendations for carrying out reproducible meta-analyses. We conducted a meta-review of meta-analyses of psychological interventions published between 2000 and 2020. We searched PubMed, PsycInfo and Web of Science databases. A structured coding form to assess transparency indicators was created based on previous studies and existing meta-analysis guidelines. We found major issues concerning: completely reproducible search procedures report, specification of the exact method to compute effect sizes, choice of weighting factors and estimators, lack of availability of the raw statistics used to compute the effect size and of interoperability of available data, and practically total absence of analysis script code sharing. Based on our findings, we conclude with recommendations intended to improve the transparency, openness, and reproducibility-related reporting practices of meta-analyses in clinical psychology and related areas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-review of transparency and reproducibility-related reporting practices in published meta-analyses on clinical psychological interventions (2000–2020)

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This RG study was reported following the Guidelines for conducting and reporting reliability generalization meta-analyses (REGEMA; Sánchez-Meca et al., 2021 ). Appendix A includes the REGEMA checklist for the present meta-analysis.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis of the Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R)

Núñez

Rubio‐Aparicio

Martínez

et al. 2022

International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Objective: The Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R) is a widely applied instrument to measure obsessive-compulsive symptoms in clinical and nonclinical samples. We conducted a reliability generalization meta-analysis on the PI-R. Method: An exhaustive literature search yielded 118 empirical studies that had applied the PI-R, from which 30 studies (33 samples) reported an original reliability estimate. Results: Assuming a random-effects model, the average internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was .92 (95% CI [.91, .93]) for the total scores, and ranged from .74 to .89 for the subscales. Assuming mixed-effects models, moderator analyses showed a positive statistically significant association between the standard deviation of the total scores and the reliability coefficients ( p = .002; R 2 = .38). Conclusions: In terms of reliability, the PI-R scale was found to be adequate for both research and clinical purposes, although exhibiting large heterogeneity across studies. Future empirical studies using the PI-R should be required to provide at least one reliability estimate based on their own data.

show abstract

“…First, a systematic review was carried out following the PRISMA methodology (Urrútia and Bonfill, 2010). A meta-analysis was then carried out following the recommendations of the REGEMA guidelines (Sánchez-Meca et al, 2021). We also followed specific guidelines for performing reliability generalization meta-analyses (Sánchez-Meca et al, 2009;Rubio-Aparicio et al, 2018).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability Generalization Study of the Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The so-called Person-Centered Care (PCC) model identifies three fundamental principles: changing the focus of attention from the disease to the person, individualizing care, and promoting empowerment. The Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool (P-CAT) has gained wide acceptance as a measure of PCC in recent years due to its brevity and simplicity, as well as its ease of application and interpretation. The objective of this study is to carry out a reliability generalization meta-analysis to estimate the internal consistency of the P-CAT and analyze possible factors that may affect it, such as the year of publication, the care context, the application method, and certain sociodemographic properties of the study sample. The mean value of α for the 25 samples of the 23 studies in the meta-analysis was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.79–0.84), with high heterogeneity (squared-I = 85.83%). The only variable that had a statistically significant relationship with the reliability coefficient was the mean age of the sample. The results show that the P-CAT gives acceptably consistent scores when its use is oriented toward the description and investigation of groups, although it may be affected by variables such as the age of participants.

show abstract

Improving the reporting quality of reliability generalization meta‐analyses: The REGEMA checklist

Cited by 57 publications

References 100 publications

A meta-review of transparency and reproducibility-related reporting practices in published meta-analyses on clinical psychological interventions (2000–2020)

A meta-review of transparency and reproducibility-related reporting practices in published meta-analyses on clinical psychological interventions (2000–2020)

A Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis of the Padua Inventory-Revised (PI-R)

Reliability Generalization Study of the Person-Centered Care Assessment Tool

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About