The bias-adjusted mean moderator effect in STEM education meta-analyses is g = 0.27 with substantial heterogeneity, and the published record shows overwhelming evidence of publication-bias-type selection¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesisr3·q3·i1small
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-21 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i1 RoBMA-PSMA yielded a model-averaged overall moderator effect of g = 0.27 (95% CrI [0.20, 0.34]) with decisive evidence for heterogeneity (τ = 0.48). → Bicakci 2026
q3 i? The analysis provided overwhelming evidence for publication-bias-type selection (BFpb = 4.72 × 10^36), consistent with the published literature being a selectively filtered subset. → Bicakci 2026 (2)
Evidence¶
Bicakci 2026¶
Bicakci, M., Heller, F., Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2026). From RAMSing to Rigor: Improving Moderator Analysis in STEM Education Meta-Research. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10172-1
q3 · i1 · quant-synthesis · r3
Robust Bayesian meta-analysis with publication-selection model averaging applied to 1,786 moderator effect sizes from 89 STEM education meta-analyses; heterogeneity evidence was decisive with "τ =0 .48, 95% CrI [0.45, 0.52]".
"RoBMA-PSMA yielded strong evidence for a nonzero overall moderator effect, BF10 =2 .98 × 106, with a model-averaged estimate of g = 0.27, 95% CrI [0.20, 0.34]."
Bicakci 2026 (2)¶
Bicakci, M., Heller, F., Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2026). From RAMSing to Rigor: Improving Moderator Analysis in STEM Education Meta-Research. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10172-1
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3
Same RoBMA-PSMA analysis of the 89-meta-analysis corpus; the authors interpret this as indicating reported moderator findings reflect systematic selection as well as substantive variation.
"RoBMA-PSMA also provided overwhelming evidence for publication-bias-type selection, BFpb =4 .72 × 1036."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Bias-adjusted posterior-predictive benchmarks for STEM moderator effect sizes (0.18, 0.38, 0.64 at the 25th, 50th, 75th percentiles) fall below both Cohen's conventional thresholds and raw empirical quartiles — related
- Non-significant moderator effect sizes show markedly lower relative visibility in the published STEM education record, with roughly 40–90% lower visibility than highly significant results — related
- Publication bias is detected in the cross-sectional data set, and bias-corrected estimates are highly heterogeneous — related
- Egger's test suggests publication bias may be present, with the selection-model adjusted mean effect falling to 0.36 — related
- Publication-bias tests found no evidence of substantial publication bias in the meta-analytic sample — reports the opposite
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
bias-adjusted-moderator-effect-stem |
title |
The bias-adjusted mean moderator effect in STEM education meta-analyses is g = 0.27 with substantial heterogeneity, and the published record shows overwhelming evidence of publication-bias-type selection |
description |
The bias-adjusted mean moderator effect in STEM education meta-analyses is g = 0.27 with substantial heterogeneity, and the published record shows overwhelming evidence of publication-bias-type selection |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2026 |
source_checked |
2026-10-21 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-21 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — bicakci-2026, bicakci-2026-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.