Publication-bias tests found no evidence of substantial publication bias in the meta-analytic sample¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Egger's regression test and the conditional PET-PEESE procedure showed no evidence of publication bias; adjusted and unadjusted overall effects were comparable. → Mok 2022

Evidence¶

Mok 2022¶

Mok, S. Y., Rupp, D., & Holzberger, D. (2022). What kind of individual support activities in interventions foster pre-service and beginning teachers' self-efficacy? A meta-analysis. Preprint submitted for peer-review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100552

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r?

Publication-bias assessment of the meta-analytic sample using Egger's regression test and the conditional PET-PEESE estimator. Egger's test was non-significant (p = .908); the PET-PEESE intercept (β0 = 0.689) was comparable to the dependency-adjusted g = .678.

"We found no evidence for an asymmetry of published studies based on the Egger's regression test (b = 0.634, z = -0.115, p = .908, CI[0.409; 0.859])."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Interventions with individual support activities improve pre-service and beginning teachers' self-efficacy with a medium-sized overall effect — related
• Publication-bias assessments substantially reduce the intercept prediction, often indicating no positive transfer when the identified moderators are absent — 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
• Egger's test suggests publication bias may be present, with the selection-model adjusted mean effect falling to 0.36 — reports the opposite
• Publication bias is present in the embodied vocabulary learning literature, suggesting pooled effects may overestimate the true benefit — reports the opposite
• Effect sizes of biology conceptual change interventions were strongly influenced by sample size and publication bias — reports the opposite
• The bias-adjusted mean moderator effect in STEM education meta-analyses is g = 0.27 with substantial heterogeneity, and the published record shows overwhelming evidence of publication-bias-type selection — reports the opposite
• No substantial evidence of publication bias or small-study effects in the screening validity meta-analysis — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Publication bias is indicated for the performance-approach and performance-avoidance anxiety effects but not for the depression effects — related
• Publication bias was significant for the overall DT analysis but not for the fluency, flexibility, or originality indicator analyses — related
• Publication-bias checks indicate limited risk of publication bias in the extensive reading literature synthesized — related
• The ratio–interactive-skills association may be partly or entirely attributable to small-study publication bias — related
• Publication bias is minimal in the meta-analytic estimate of the inhibitory control–mathematical ability correlation — related
• No evidence of publication bias was found in the achievement goal–dishonesty literature — related
• Formal tests find no substantial evidence of publication bias or small-study effects in the meta-analysis — related