Publication-bias adjustment via limit meta-analysis lowers the overall STEM benchmarks to 0.14, 0.32, and 0.59¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? After limit meta-analysis adjustment, the overall quartiles fall to 0.14, 0.32, and 0.59, below Cohen's cut points at each quartile. → Mehmet Bicakci 2026

Evidence¶

Mehmet Bicakci 2026¶

Mehmet Bicakci, Heidrun Stoeger, Diana Wengler, Albert Ziegler. (2026). Recalibrating impact in STEM education: Empirical benchmarks for interpreting intervention effects. Educational Research Review 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2026.100803

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3

Limit meta-analysis re-estimated effects at the limit of infinite precision under a random-effects model; adjusted quartiles were recalculated and are reported as "the corresponding publication-bias-adjusted quartiles were 0.14, 0.32, and 0.59".

"Raw quartiles for the overall effect size distribution were 0.21, 0.48, and 0.86 at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles, respectively, whereas the corresponding publication-bias-adjusted quartiles were 0.14, 0.32, and 0.59"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Benchmarks are sensitive to precision and publication bias, but subgroup ordering remains stable and one-per-primary-study quartiles are broadly similar to raw values — related
• Raw effect size quartiles for STEM education interventions overall are 0.21, 0.48, and 0.86 at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles — related
• Desired outcomes show markedly larger benchmarks than undesired outcomes, the strongest contrast in the study — related
• Bias-adjusted posterior-predictive benchmarks for STEM moderator effect sizes (0.18, 0.38, 0.64 at the 25th, 50th, 75th percentiles) fall below both Cohen's conventional thresholds and raw empirical quartiles — related