Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Management
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fuller, J. B.
Right arrow Articles by Hester, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Comparing the Sample-Weighted and Unweighted Meta-Analysis: An Applied Perspective

J. Bryan Fuller

Kim Hester

Arkansas State University

An extensive comparison of the sample-weighted method (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990), and a newer unweighted method (Osburn & Callender, 1992) of meta-analysis is presented using actual data. Several of the advantages of the unweighted method predicted by Osburn and Callendar’s simulation research did not always hold in actual application. Specifically, the unweighted method did not always produce larger estimates of observed variance, credibility intervals, and confidence intervals than the sample-weighted method when large sample outliers are present. Also, Osburn and Callender’s research on mean sampling variance formulae did not generalize to meta-analysis using the average correlation estimator to measure sample error variance. Finally, results show that while both methods may generate similar parameter and variance estimates in primary meta-analysis, they may lead researchers to reach different substantive conclusions in the analysis of moderators.

Journal of Management, Vol. 25, No. 6, 803-828 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/014920639902500602
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Educational and Psychological MeasurementHome page
J. L. Romano and J. D. Kromrey
What Are the Consequences If the Assumption of Independent Observations Is Violated in Reliability Generalization Meta-Analysis Studies?
Educational and Psychological Measurement, June 1, 2009; 69(3): 404 - 428.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
H. Aguinis, M. C. Sturman, and C. A. Pierce
Comparison of Three Meta-Analytic Procedures for Estimating Moderating Effects of Categorical Variables
Organizational Research Methods, January 1, 2008; 11(1): 9 - 34.
[Abstract] [PDF]