Search

We demonstrate that all conventional meta-analyses of correlation coefficients are biased, explain why, and offer solutions. Because the standard errors of the correlation coefficients depend on the size of the coefficient, inverse-variance weighted averages will be biased even under ideal meta-analytical conditions (i.e., absence of publication bias, p -hacking, or other biases). Transformation to Fisher's z often greatly reduces these biases but still does not mitigate them entirely. Although all are small-sample biases ( n < 200), they will often have practical consequences in psychology where the typical sample size of correlational studies is 86. We offer two solutions: the well-known Fisher's z-transformation and new small-sample adjustment of Fisher's that renders any remaining bias scientifically trivial. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Meta-analysis is an important quantitative tool for cumulative science, but its application is frustrated by publication bias. In order to test and adjust for publication bias, we extend model-averaged Bayesian meta-analysis with selection models. The resulting robust Bayesian meta-analysis (RoBMA) methodology does not require all-or-none decisions about the presence of publication bias, can quantify evidence in favor of the absence of publication bias, and performs well under high heterogeneity. By model-averaging over a set of 12 models, RoBMA is relatively robust to model misspecification and simulations show that it outperforms existing methods. We demonstrate that RoBMA finds evidence for the absence of publication bias in Registered Replication Reports and reliably avoids false positives. We provide an implementation in R so that researchers can easily use the new methodology in practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).