No evidence of publication bias was found in the achievement goal–dishonesty literature¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r? · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Egger's Regression, Begg's Rank Correlation, and Tests of Excess Significance found no indication of publication bias. → Tanja Fritz 2023

Evidence¶

Tanja Fritz 2023¶

Tanja Fritz, Hernán González Cruz, Stefan Janke, Martin Daumiller. (2023). Elucidating the Associations Between Achievement Goals and Academic Dishonesty: a Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09753-1

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r?

Publication bias assessment using Egger's Regression test, Begg's Rank Correlation test, and Tests of Excess Significance, run per goal type with contour-enhanced funnel plots; grey literature was limited to four dissertation theses.

"We used these methods within each type of goal individually and visualized effect size distribution with contour-enhanced funnel plots (indicating areas of statistical significance). No indication for publication bias was found"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Most research on achievement goals and academic dishonesty relies on correlational designs, self-report dishonesty measures, and personal goal measures — related
• Publication bias is unlikely to explain the consistency of SRL intervention effect sizes — related
• Publication-bias checks indicate the pooled effect is unlikely to result from publication bias — related
• Publication-bias checks indicate limited risk of publication bias in the extensive reading literature synthesized — related
• Journal-published studies show larger concept-mapping effects than dissertations and conference papers (g = 1.039 vs. 0.254) — related
• Publication bias is evident for Negative Behaviour and Anxiety/Stress across all RCTs and for Mindfulness in active-control RCTs, suggesting overestimation of MBI effects — related
• Publication bias is present in the embodied vocabulary learning literature, suggesting pooled effects may overestimate the true benefit — related
• Publication-bias tests found no evidence of substantial publication bias in the meta-analytic sample — related
• No evidence of publication bias was detected in the pooled L2 gender-difference literature — related