1. Funded through the ESRC’s Researcher Development Initiative Department of Education, University of Oxford Session 2.3 – Publication bias

3.  A type of selection bias in which only published studies are analysed.  Assumption that studies that are published are more likely to report statistically significant findings.  Defined as “a bias against negative findings on the part of those involved in deciding whether to publish a study” (Soeken & Sripusanapan, 2003, p. 57).  It could lead to an overestimation of effect sizes, as published studies tend to have higher effect sizes than unpublished studies (Lipsey & Wilson, 1993).  Can result in inflation of Type I error rates in the published literature

4.  The debate about using only published studies:  peer-reviewed studies are presumably of a higher quality VERSUS  significant findings are more likely to be published than non-significant findings  There is no agreed upon solution. However, one should retrieve all studies that meet the eligibility criteria, and be explicit with how they dealt with publication bias.  Some methods for dealing with publication bias have been developed (e.g., Fail-safe N, Trim and Fill method).

5.  Inclusion of unpublished papers is likely to add considerable “noise” to the analyses  Methods typically used to find unpublished papers are ‘ad hoc’  the resulting selection of studies is likely to be less representative of the unknown population of studies than is the population of published studies, and typically will be more homogeneous (White, 1994).  “Whether bias is reduced or increased by including unpublished studies cannot formally be assessed as it is impossible to be certain that all unpublished studies have been located (Smith & Egger, 1998)”  Hence, for published papers, there is a more clearly defined population of studies to which to generalize than would be the case if unpublished studies were included.

6.  A central goal of meta-analysis is to be inclusive.  Meta-analyses call for a balance between practicality and comprehensiveness (Durlak & Lipsey, 1991).  A compromise is for meta-analysts to report how they dealt with publication bias

8.  Examination of the focus of the included studies  Fail-safe N  Trim & Fill  Sensitivity analysis (Vevea & Woods, 2005)

9.  Imagine a meta-analysis in which gender differences in self-concept is the focus  If the main aim of an included study is on a completely different issue, so that gender differences are incidental to the main focus of the study, the statistical significance of gender differences per se are unlikely to contribute to publication bias.  Hence, the generalisability of the effect size over this aspect of the study (degree to which gender effects are a main focus) provides a test of publication bias and an alternative perspective against which to validate other more generalisable approaches to this issue.

10.  Run an ANOVA in which effect sizes are grouped by 1. Studies in which the research question of the meta- analysis is central to the study (e.g., gender differences in self-concept) 2. Studies in which the research question of the meta- analysis is not central to the study (e.g., gender differences in achievement)  If significant difference in which studies with (1) as focus have higher mean effect size, then this could suggest publication bias (but does not confirm it!!!)

11.  The fail-safe N (Rosenthal, 1991) determines the number of studies with an effect size of zero needed to lower the observed effect size to a specified (criterion) level.  See Orwin (1983) for formula and discussion  For example, assume that you want to test the assumption that an effect size is at least.20.  If the observed effect size was.26 and the fail-safe N was found to be 44, this means that 44 unpublished studies with a mean effect size of zero would need to be included in the sample to reduce the observed effect size of.26 to.20.

12.  Trim and fill procedure (Duval & Tweedie, 2000a, 2000b) calculates the effect of potential data censoring (including publication bias) on the outcome of the meta-analyses.  Nonparametric, iterative technique examines the symmetry of effect sizes plotted by the inverse of the standard error. Ideally, the effect sizes should mirror on either side of the mean.

13.  The trim and fill process is as follows (O’Mara, 2008; see also Duval & Tweedie, 2000a, 2000b): 1. The overall mean is calculated in the usual manner. 2. The number of hypothetical missing studies is estimated and their corresponding non-missing effect sizes are “trimmed” from the dataset. 3. The overall mean is re-estimated (excluding the omitted effect sizes). 4. The newly calculated “trimmed” mean is used to re-estimate the number of hypothetical missing studies (as in Step One).

14. 5. Steps Two to Four are repeated until the signed ranks of the effect sizes do not change, and the algorithm is terminated. 6. The original dataset is “filled” with symmetric data points representing the potential omitted studies. 7. The overall mean effect size and confidence intervals are recalculated, incorporating the influence of the hypothetical missing studies (Gilbody, Song, Eastwood & Sutton, 2000; Sutton, Duval, Tweedie, Abrams & Jones, 2000).

15.  The L 0 and R 0 estimators indicate how many hypothetical, non-published studies with a negative effect size were missing from the meta-analysis (step 6 on the previous slide)

17.  Assumption that all suppressed studies are those with the most negative effect sizes. If this assumption is inaccurate, the “corrected” effect- size estimate will be inaccurate (Vevea & Woods, 2005)

18.  The robustness of the findings to different assumptions can be examined through sensitivity analysis  It can be used to assess whether study quality affects the results, or whether publication bias is likely  Sensitivity analysis can take various forms. For example, can include study quality as a predictor to see if this has an impact on the effect sizes  In publication bias, Vevea & Woods (2005) applied it to a weight function

19.  “A new approach is proposed that is suitable for application to meta-analytic data sets that are too small for the application of existing methods. The model estimates parameters relevant to fixed- effects, mixed-effects or random-effects meta- analysis contingent on a hypothetical pattern of bias that is fixed independently of the data (p. 428)”  Imposes a set of fixed weights determined a priori and chosen to represent a specific form and severity of biased selection  Useful also when datasets are small

20.  “The author of the meta-analysis, then, is faced with a logically impossible task: to show that publication bias is not a problem for the particular data set at hand. We describe the task as logically impossible because it amounts, in essence, to an attempt at confirming a null hypothesis. (Vevea & Woods, 2005, p. 438)”  Different methods can attempt to address (assess?) the issue, but none is perfect.  At least we can conclude that the Fail-safe N is not appropriate!  Include unpublished studies?

21.  Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000a). A Nonparametric "Trim and Fill" Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 89-98.  Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000b). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455–463  Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.  Orwin, R. G. (1983). A Fail-Safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8, 157-159.  Smith, G. D., & Egger, M. (1998). Meta-analysis: Unresolved issues and future developments. BMJ, 7126.  Van den Noortgate, W., & Onghena, P. (2003). Multilevel meta-analysis: A comparison with traditional meta-analytical procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 765-790.  Vevea, J. L., & Woods, C. M. (2005). Publication bias in research synthesis: Sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions. Psychological Methods, 10, 428–443.