Race Comparisons on Need for Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Alternative to Graham's Narrative Review

Section: A Meta-analysis Of Multigrade and Multi-age Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Veenmanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Multigrade and Multi-Age Classes Reconsidered

Veenman

1996

“…Cooper and Dorr (1995) focus on a meta-analysis of the race-comparative studies on need for achievement and, to a lesser extent, self-concept of ability that I reviewed. Their meta-analysis of the research on need for achievement pinpoints some of the drawbacks of the narrative approach that I adopted.…”

Section: The Benefits Of Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Graham

1995

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.

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Narrative Versus Meta-Analytic Reviews: A Rejoinder to Graham’s Comment

Cooper

Dorr

1995

Self Cite

We examine Graham's (1995) Graham's (1995) response to our comment provides some important addenda to both our meta-analysis (Cooper & Dorr, 1995) and her original box score review of research on race differences in motivation (Graham, 1994). With most of her points, as with her initial review, we have no contention. However, we think a few corrections should be made to her new exposition, both in regard to our work and to meta-analysis in general. The Issue of Quality ControlGraham states that meta-analysts possess a "reluctance to distinguish between low-and high-quality studies" (p. 509) and "tend to downplay the question of poor-quality studies as a barrier to a good review" (p. 511). We disagree. Rather, we would suggest that many meta-analysts (but not all and not in every circumstance; see, for example, Ottenbacher & Cooper, 1983) eschew the process of discarding studies from consideration based on unitary, dichotomous judgments of quality. Underpinning this decision is a healthy skepticism about the reliability and objectivity of global judgments of research quality. Instead, these metaanalysts assess empirically the impact of multiple dimensions of methodology on the outcomes of studies, and thereby display a great sensitivity to issues of research quality.Regardless, the issue of quality control is moot in the present instance. In our meta-analysis, the evidential base was identical to that constructed by Graham herself. Her quality criteria were our quality criteria. Further, we examined the 515