Background/Context: Over the past twenty plus years, the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) has reviewed over 1,700 studies, cataloging effect sizes for 189 interventions. Some 56% of these interventions include results from multiple, independent studies; on average, these include results of [approximately]3 studies, though some include as many as 32…

This article provides a meta-analysis of studies using the crosswise model (CM) in estimating the prevalence of sensitive characteristics in different samples and populations. On a data set of 141 items published in 33 either articles or books, we compare the difference ([delta]) between estimates based on the CM and a direct question (DQ). The…

The assessment of positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) by means of the Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule has received a remarkable popularity in the social sciences. Using a meta-analytic tool--namely, reliability generalization (RG)--population reliability scores of both scales have been investigated on the basis of a random…

The authors critiqued the M. K. Lovelace (2005) meta-analysis of the Dunn and Dunn Model of Learning-Style Preferences (DDMLSP). The conclusion that Lovelace reported in her meta-analysis that learning-style instruction is a beneficial form of instructional delivery is unjustified because of critical conceptual and practical problems. Those…

The meta-analytic random effects model assumes that the variability in effect size estimates drawn from a set of studies can be decomposed into two parts: heterogeneity due to random population effects and sampling variance. In this context, the usual goal is to estimate the central tendency and the amount of heterogeneity in the population effect…