Critical Review of Meta Analysis
A Critical Review of Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Meta-analysis has been much debated and criticized since its creation, and it has been argued that systematic reviews are superior. The present study examined the reverse idea – that meta-analysis is the superior method. A literature search was conducted of meta-analysis studies for psychotherapy within the PsycINFO database. The resulting studies were further examined and classified as either primary articles or secondary articles. Primary articles were further examined for secondary articles associated with them. It was found that there was some criticism within the literature. The results were compared to a study of systematic review literature conducted at the same time. The comparison implies that, contrary to the hypothesis, meta-analysis may not be superior to systematic reviews.
A Critical Review of Meta-Analysis
Since its introduction by Gene Glass and his colleagues in 1976, meta-analysis has been a topic of considerable debate (Card, 2011). One of the most common topics of debate is the efficacy of the meta-analytic review, especially when compared to that of the traditional systematic review (Card, 2011). A predominant and noteworthy area of debate and criticism pertaining to the efficacy of meta-analysis is within the field of psychotherapy. In 1977, Glass paired up with Rebecca Smith and released a meta-analytic review of 375 studies on the effectiveness of various psychotherapies (Card, 2011). Their analysis revealed only a small difference amongst the therapies in their level of effectiveness, though their findings have sparked considerable criticism from other psychologists.
Despite this criticism, more and more researchers were beginning to utilize the meta-analytic approach by the early 1980s (Card, 2011), and it continues to be used to this day. The question remains, however, as to which method of analysis is superior: the traditional method of the systematic review or the
Abstract
Meta-analysis has been much debated and criticized since its creation, and it has been argued that systematic reviews are superior. The present study examined the reverse idea – that meta-analysis is the superior method. A literature search was conducted of meta-analysis studies for psychotherapy within the PsycINFO database. The resulting studies were further examined and classified as either primary articles or secondary articles. Primary articles were further examined for secondary articles associated with them. It was found that there was some criticism within the literature. The results were compared to a study of systematic review literature conducted at the same time. The comparison implies that, contrary to the hypothesis, meta-analysis may not be superior to systematic reviews.
A Critical Review of Meta-Analysis
Since its introduction by Gene Glass and his colleagues in 1976, meta-analysis has been a topic of considerable debate (Card, 2011). One of the most common topics of debate is the efficacy of the meta-analytic review, especially when compared to that of the traditional systematic review (Card, 2011). A predominant and noteworthy area of debate and criticism pertaining to the efficacy of meta-analysis is within the field of psychotherapy. In 1977, Glass paired up with Rebecca Smith and released a meta-analytic review of 375 studies on the effectiveness of various psychotherapies (Card, 2011). Their analysis revealed only a small difference amongst the therapies in their level of effectiveness, though their findings have sparked considerable criticism from other psychologists.
Despite this criticism, more and more researchers were beginning to utilize the meta-analytic approach by the early 1980s (Card, 2011), and it continues to be used to this day. The question remains, however, as to which method of analysis is superior: the traditional method of the systematic review or the
References: Berkeljon, A., & Baldwin, S. A. (2009). An introduction to meta-analysis for psychotherapy outcome research Chan, M., & Arvey, R. D. (2012). Meta-analysis and the development of knowledge. Glass, G. V., McGraw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Mackay, S., Maier, T., & Indlekofer, A. (2012). A critical analysis of systematic review: Is meta analysis truly superior? Unpublished manuscript, University of the Fraser Valley. |Merson, D. N. (2010). Does youth psychotherapy improve | | | |academically related outcomes? A meta-analysis |Benish, S. G., Imel, Z. E., & Wampold, B. E. (2008). The relative |Primary |See Appendix B | |efficacy of bona fide psychotherapies for treating post-traumatic | | | |Bortolotti, B., Menchetti, M., Bellini, F., Montaguti, M., & Berardi, D. |Primary | | |(2008) |Burlingame, G. M., Fuhriman, A., & Mosier, J. (2003). The |Primary | | |differential effectiveness of group psychotherapy: A meta-analytic | | | |Cortina, M. (2010). The future of psychodynamic psychotherapy. |Primary | | |Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 73(1), 43- | | | |Cuijpers, P., Smit, F., Hollon, S. D., & Andersson, G. (2010). |Primary | | |Continuous and dichotomous outcomes in studies of psychotherapy | | |