Publication-bias tests (Egger's test and trim-and-fill) indicate absence of publication bias for the overall effect and moderators¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Egger's test and the trim-and-fill method were not significant (p ≥ 0.05) for the overall effect and the three moderators. → Detlev Leutner · Johanna Biele 2025

Evidence¶

Detlev Leutner · Johanna Biele 2025¶

Detlev Leutner · Johanna Biele. (2025). Without Integration, Everything Is Nothing: A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Instructional Support for Drawing-to-Learn. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10067-7

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r?

Bias screening in the meta-analysis (Table 2 reports Egger intercepts of 0.57 for comprehension, p = 0.245, and 0.71 for transfer, p = 0.532). The article nonetheless notes the transfer funnel plot appears asymmetrical, so inferences on publication bias cannot be drawn with high confidence.

"Egger's test and the trim-and-fill method were not significant (p ≥ 0.05), indicating the absence of publication bias"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Publication-bias checks indicate the pooled effect is unlikely to result from publication bias — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Publication bias analyses suggest the negative correlation is robust but trim-and-fill adjusts it to r = −.227 — related
• Publication bias is unlikely to explain the consistency of SRL intervention effect sizes — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Evidence of small-study effects exists for cognition and motivation, but trim-and-fill adjustment leaves the moderate motivating effect essentially unchanged — related
• Publication-bias adjustments render the ER difficulties–lack of efficacy and adaptive ER–emotional exhaustion effects non-significant — related
• Publication bias is detected in the cross-sectional data set, and bias-corrected estimates are highly heterogeneous — related
• The pooled self-efficacy–partnership correlation appears robust to the file-drawer problem — 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
• Publication bias was significant for the overall DT analysis but not for the fluency, flexibility, or originality indicator analyses — related
• The pooled burnout–dropout intentions effect appears robust to outliers and minimally influenced by publication bias — related
• No evidence of dissemination bias was detected in the meta-analysis — related
• Publication-bias checks indicate limited risk of publication bias in the extensive reading literature synthesized — related
• Publication bias is minimal in the meta-analytic estimate of the inhibitory control–mathematical ability correlation — related
• No evidence of publication bias was detected in the pooled L2 gender-difference literature — related
• Formal tests find no substantial evidence of publication bias or small-study effects in the meta-analysis — related