No evidence of publication bias was found for the overall effect of gamification on intrinsic motivation¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Funnel plot inspection, Kendall's tau (τ = −0.02689, p = 0.82025), Egger's regression (α = −0.14994, p = 0.88721), and the fail-safe N (281 missing studies needed) found no publication bias. → Liuyufeng Li 2024

Evidence¶

Liuyufeng Li 2024¶

Liuyufeng Li, Khe Foon Hew, Jiahui Du. (2024). Gamification enhances student intrinsic motivation, perceptions of autonomy and relatedness, but minimal impact on competency: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Education Tech Research Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10337-7

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Four publication-bias analyses were run on the meta-analytic dataset: funnel plot, classic fail-safe N test, Egger's regression, and Begg and Mazumdar's rank correlation. All indicated no bias; the fail-safe N was 281 null studies.

"For the overall effect to be statistically nonsignificant, 281 missing studies with zero mean effect size were required. We thus concluded that the overall average effect size observed in our study was not exaggerated by publication bias"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Publication-bias checks indicate the pooled effect is unlikely to result from publication bias — related
• The pooled self-efficacy–partnership correlation appears robust to the file-drawer problem — related
• No evidence of publication bias was detected in the pooled L2 gender-difference literature — related
• The pooled gamification effect is robust across dependence assumptions, quality thresholds, and model specifications, with no evidence of publication bias — related
• Formal tests find no substantial evidence of publication bias or small-study effects in the meta-analysis — related
• Publication bias is unlikely to explain the consistency of SRL intervention effect sizes — related
• Publication bias does not explain the significant positive outcomes of the 7E learning cycle in this meta-analysis — related
• The meta-analytic result is robust to publication bias, with a fail-safe number of 33,896.6 null studies needed to nullify the observed effect — related
• Publication bias in the meta-analysis is low, as indicated by a fail-safe N of 4860 and funnel plot inspection. — related
• The meta-analysis shows no publication bias (Begg-Mazumdar p = .196) and is resistant to it (fail-safe N = 463) — related
• Publication bias tests give mixed evidence: Egger's test indicates bias, but fail-safe N calculations lead the authors to conclude no publication bias — related
• No evidence of publication bias in the SDL meta-analysis — related