The pooled self-efficacy–partnership correlation appears robust to the file-drawer problem¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Funnel plots, Egger's test, publication-status moderation, and fail-safe N analysis showed limited evidence of publication bias. → Tianyi Ma 2024

Evidence¶

Tianyi Ma 2024¶

Tianyi Ma, Cassandra L. Tellegen, Julie Hodges, Matthew R. Sanders. (2024). The Associations Between Parenting Self-Efficacy and Parents' Contributions to the Home-School Partnership Among Parents of Primary School Students: a Multilevel Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09937-3

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Three publication-bias tests were applied. Published studies had larger effect sizes than unpublished (Fisher's Z = .222 vs .149) but not significantly (p = .124); fail-safe N analysis suggested at least 2797 null effect sizes would be needed to reduce the pooled effect to non-significance.

"Funnel plot (see Fig. 2) and Egger's test of heterogeneity suggested that the distribution of effect sizes was largely symmetrical, thus showing limited evidence of publication bias, t(18) = 0.111, p = .913."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Parenting self-efficacy shows a small to medium positive correlation with parents' contributions to the home-school partnership among primary school families — a broader claim this one bears on
• 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
• 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 analyses suggest the negative correlation is robust but trim-and-fill adjusts it to r = −.227 — related
• Publication bias is present in the embodied vocabulary learning literature, suggesting pooled effects may overestimate the true benefit — reports the opposite
• Egger's test suggests publication bias may be present, with the selection-model adjusted mean effect falling to 0.36 — reports the opposite
• Evidence of publication bias exists, but the pooled video effects are robust to it — 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
• Publication-bias checks indicate limited risk of publication bias in the extensive reading literature synthesized — related
• No evidence of publication bias was detected in the pooled L2 gender-difference literature — related