Publication bias evidence is mixed: marginal asymmetry for tutees but no missing studies, and no bias for tutors¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Egger's regression test for tutees yielded t = 1.87 (df = 115, p = 0.06), indicating marginal significance for funnel plot asymmetry. → Chang 2025 q3 i? Egger's test for tutors yielded t = −1.39 (df = 28, p = 0.17), indicating no significant asymmetry. → Chang 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Chang 2025¶

Chang, A., Mauer, E., Wanzek, J., Kim, S., Scammacca, N., & Swanson, E. (2025). Examining the academic effects of cross-age tutoring: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 37, 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-09997-z

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Egger's regression test using a mixed-effects meta-regression model with standard error as predictor for tutee effect sizes. Trim-and-fill analysis found no missing studies on the left side of the funnel plot.

"The test yielded a value of t = 1.87 (df = 115, p = 0.06), indicating marginal significance for funnel plot asymmetry. This finding suggests that publication bias may be present."

Chang 2025 (2)¶

Chang, A., Mauer, E., Wanzek, J., Kim, S., Scammacca, N., & Swanson, E. (2025). Examining the academic effects of cross-age tutoring: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 37, 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-09997-z

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Egger's regression test for tutor effect sizes showed a symmetric funnel plot with no evidence of publication bias.

"The Egger's test yielded a value of t = − 1.39 (df = 28, p = 0.17), indicating no significant asymmetry in the funnel plot and thus no evidence of publication bias."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Cross-age tutoring produces a small-to-moderate positive effect on academic outcomes for both tutors and tutees — related
• Publication-bias evidence differs by subset: significant funnel-plot asymmetry for course-embedded spacing studies but no strong evidence of bias for isolated-material studies. — related
• The pooled effect of writing instruction for US ELL students is robust to sensitivity analyses but funnel plot asymmetry suggests possible missing positive effect sizes — related
• Publication-bias checks indicate the pooled effect is unlikely to result from publication bias — related
• Publication bias is unlikely to explain the consistency of SRL intervention effect sizes — related
• Funnel-plot asymmetry ran contrary to small-study effects because larger-sample studies reported larger effect sizes, likely reflecting longer training programs — related
• Funnel-plot asymmetry indicates small-study effects for some emotion–learning models — related
• Publication bias is present in the embodied vocabulary learning literature, suggesting pooled effects may overestimate the true benefit — related
• Funnel plot asymmetry for openness, extraversion, and neuroticism appears attributable to reasons other than publication bias — related
• The ratio–interactive-skills association may be partly or entirely attributable to small-study publication bias — related
• Funnel-plot asymmetry suggests possible selection or publication bias, but p-curve analyses indicate evidential value for the pooled relationships — related
• Publication bias could not be ruled out in the pooled teacher-student SEC estimate, though the association persisted across sensitivity analyses — related