Publication bias analyses suggest the negative correlation is robust but trim-and-fill adjusts it to r = −.227¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Egger's test did not suggest publication bias, but trim-and-fill trimmed 31 studies and adjusted the correlation from −.355 to −.227. → Martine Baars & Lisette Wijnia & Anique de Bruin & Fred Paas 2020
Evidence¶
Martine Baars & Lisette Wijnia & Anique de Bruin & Fred Paas 2020¶
Martine Baars & Lisette Wijnia & Anique de Bruin & Fred Paas. (2020). The Relation Between Students' Effort and Monitoring Judgments During Learning: A Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09569-3
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3
Publication bias assessment using funnel plot, Egger's regression intercept (t(121) = 0.39, p = .348), trim-and-fill, and fail-safe N (20,731 missing studies needed) showed the adjusted correlation remained negative.
"Duval and Tweedie 's trim-and-fill technique (31 studies trimmed at the right side) resulted in an adjusted correlation from − .355 to − .227 (95% CI [ − .291, − .162]."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Effort and monitoring judgments show a medium negative correlation (r = −.355) during learning — related
- Publication-bias checks indicate the pooled effect is unlikely to result from publication bias — related
- The text generation research field shows a small-study effect suggesting publication bias — related
- No evidence of publication bias was found in the meta-analysis — related
- A cluster-robust Egger-type test found no statistically detectable small-study effects, interpreted as absence of evidence rather than evidence of no publication bias — related
- No evidence of publication bias, and extra-large-sample studies do not differ from the rest — related
- The pooled self-efficacy–partnership correlation appears robust to the file-drawer problem — related
- Effort ratings correlate negatively with judgments of learning (r = −0.355), but the correlation disappears under a goal-driven interpretation of effort — related
- Publication-bias tests (Egger's test and trim-and-fill) indicate absence of publication bias for the overall effect and moderators — related
- No evidence of dissemination bias was detected in the meta-analysis — related
- No evidence of publication bias was detected in the pooled L2 gender-difference literature — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
publication-bias-trim-and-fill-adjustment |
title |
Publication bias analyses suggest the negative correlation is robust but trim-and-fill adjusts it to r = −.227 |
description |
Publication bias analyses suggest the negative correlation is robust but trim-and-fill adjusts it to r = −.227 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2020 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-19 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — martine-baars-lisette-wijnia-anique-de-bruin-fred-paas-2020 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.