Formal tests find no substantial evidence of publication bias or small-study effects in the meta-analysis¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Egger's regression test with robust variance estimation was non-significant both with and without outliers, indicating no evidence of publication bias. → Ellinor Waaland 2026

Evidence¶

Ellinor Waaland 2026¶

Ellinor Waaland, Vibeke Rønneberg, Dieuwer ten Braak. (2026). Effects and Characteristics of Mathematics Interventions for Students with Co-Occurring Difficulties in Mathematics and Reading: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-026-10184-x

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Publication-bias assessment including contour-enhanced funnel plots, Egger's regression test with robust variance, and PET models. PET intercepts were non-significant in both models; the authors conclude "no substantial evidence of publication bias and small-study effects" and did not proceed to PEESE.

"Formally testing for funnel plot asymmetry and accounting for dependencies, Egger`s regression test produced non-significant findings both with (intercept: −3.8, SE = 1.62, p = 0.100, and slope: 13.3, SE = 4.63, p = 0.128) and without outliers (intercept: 0.29, SE = 0.425, p = 0.571, and slope: 0.81, SE = 1.21, p = 0.565), indicating no evidence of publication bias."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Mathematics interventions produce a positive overall mean effect on mathematical outcomes for students with co-occurring mathematics and reading difficulties compared to business-as-usual control — 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
• Publication bias is detected in the cross-sectional data set, and bias-corrected estimates are highly heterogeneous — related
• Publication-bias checks indicate limited risk of publication bias in the extensive reading literature synthesized — related
• Publication-bias tests (Egger's test and trim-and-fill) indicate absence of publication bias for the overall effect and moderators — related
• The pooled gamification effect is robust across dependence assumptions, quality thresholds, and model specifications, with no evidence of publication bias — 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 tests found no evidence of substantial publication bias in the meta-analytic sample — related