Narrative Versus Meta-Analytic Reviews of Race Differences in Motivation: A Comment on Cooper and Dorr

Abstract

Some of the benefits and shortcomings of a meta-analytic approach to reviewing race differences in need for achievement (Cooper & Dorr, 1995) are examined and compared to the narrative approach that I adopted in a previous review on this topic (Graham, 1994). Among the benefits ofmetaanalysis are the calculation of effect sizes for race differences (compared to the box score method of my narrative review) and the presentation of replicable and objective procedures for organizing, describing, and comparing study characteristics. Among the perceived limitations are the metaanalyst's reluctance to distinguish between low-and high-quality studies and an overemphasis on quantitative comparisons of substantively disparate literatures. The implications for studying race as a psychological variable are also discussed.

A narrative review of the effectiveness of aggression management training programs for psychiatric hospital staff

“…Narrative review is one approach for summarizing and critically interpreting the conclusions of primary studies, and is considered to be a valuable strategy for organizing knowledge (see Cullen, Wright, & Blevins, 2006; Educational Research Review, 2007). In contrast to systematic reviews, which utilize strict protocols to exclude studies that fail to meet a certain threshold of methodological rigor, narrative reviews tend to employ a more comprehensive and inclusive approach (Collins & Fauser, 2005; Cooper & Rosenthal, 1980; Graham, 1995). Generally, the results of narrative reviews are described qualitatively, rather than quantitatively.…”

The clinical effectiveness of Ginger (Zingiber officinale) in adults with osteoarthritis

“…Hence, the findings were summarised in narrative form. While a narrative review is limited by subjectivity and the absence of an effect size, 13 the comprehensive search strategy and systematic nature of the review lower any risk of systematic error, and therefore, provide assurance that practitioners will be adequately informed about the clinical effectiveness of ginger in OA.…”

The Use of Ginger (Zingiber officinale) for the Treatment of Pain: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials

“…Even though we believe our search strategy to be comprehensive, we cannot be sure that our efforts were successful as publication bias is a problem in all medical research [23] and this problem may be exacerbated in alternative medicine literature [5]. It has also been argued that a narrative summary is susceptible to bias, subjectivity, and limited by the absence of an effect size [24]. In order to minimize this possibility, three of the four reviewers (RT, LW, and PP) discussed the study findings and quality indicators in depth, as well as the potential impact of methodological shortcomings, resolving discrepancies with the fourth reviewer (EE) if necessary.…”