Basic characteristics and utility of the meta-analysis in behavioral sciences

Authors

  • Ennio Héctor Carro Pérez Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1804/rpcc-uacjs.v4i2.56

Keywords:

meta-analyzes, systematic reviews, characteristics, utility, behavioral sciences

Abstract

Meta-analysis can be viewed from different perspectives depending on the lens you have, traditionally and by origin is a method that aims to determine the effect size of a compilation of primary studies, can also be used as a display on a journey particular discipline, or a tool to assess the quality of scientific output. Although meta-analysis has had a widely used on areas of knowledge such as medicine, those devoted to the study of human behavior has been less use. In this paper we describe the characteristics of this type of study, distinguishing it from other methodological approaches such as systematic review and bibliometrics, analyzing the potential benefits using this particular type of study in the behavioral sciences.

Author Biography

Ennio Héctor Carro Pérez, Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas

Profesor e investigador de la Licenciatura en Psicología y Coordinador del Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo Tecnológico Aplicado a Comportamiento (CIDETAC), de la Unidad Académica de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales, de la Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas. Tel: (833) 241 2000, Ext.3665. E-mail: ennio_carro@yahoo.com

References

Buela–Casal, G. (2003). Evaluación de la calidad de los artículos y de las revistas científicas: Propuesta del factor de impacto ponderado y de un índice de calidad. Psicothema. 15 (1), pp. 23-35.

Carro P., E. H. (2011, Noviembre). Metaanálisis en publicaciones periódicas nacionales y del sur de Tamaulipas en psicología. Trabajo enviado al 2º Congreso Internacional de Psicología, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Facultad de Ciencias de la Conducta, Toluca, México, 22-25 de Noviembre.

Chacón-Moscoso, S., Sánchez-Meca, J., Sanduvete Ch., S., y Alarcón R., D. (2005, Febrero). A scale to measure the quality of primary studies for meta-analysis, a content validity study. Trabajo presentado en The Sixth International Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, California, February 22-24.

Chacón-Moscoso, S., Sanduvete Ch., S., Sánchez, M. y Sánchez-Meca, J. (2007, Mayo). Measuring methodological quality of primary studies for meta-analysis. Preliminary results from a proposed scale. Trabajo presentado en 7th Annual Internacional Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, London, May 14-17.

Clark-Carter, D. (2002). Investigación cuantitativa en psicología. México: Oxford.

Delgado R., M. y Palma P., S. (2006). Aportaciones de la revisión sistemática y del metaanálisis a la salud pública. Revista Española de Salud Pública. 80 (5), pp. 483-489.

Gisbert, J. y Bonfill, X. (2004). ¿Cómo realizar, evaluar y utilizar revisiones sistemáticas y metaanálisis? Gastroenterol Hepatol. 27 (3), 129-149.

Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher. 5 (10), pp. 3-8.

Guallar, E., Damián, J. y Martín-Moreno, J.M. (1997). Métodos de investigación en cardiología clínica (VII). Metaanálisis y revisiones sistemáticas en cardiología. Revista Española de Cardiología. 50, 345-354.

Hayes, A. y Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data. Communication Methods and Measures. Vol. 1(1), pp. 77-89.

Jones, D. R. (1993). El metaanálisis en los estudios epidemiológicos observacionales. Boletín de la Oficina Sanitaria Panamericana. 115 (5), pp. 438-445.

Jovell, A. J. y Navarro – Rubio, M. D. (1995). Evaluación de la evidencia científica. Medicina Clínica. 105 (19). pp. 740-743.

Kline, R. B. (2004). Beyond significance testing: Retorming data analyisis methods in behavioral research. (pp.247-271). Washington, D.C., US: American Psychological Association.

Krippendorff, K. (1992). Recent Developments in Reliability Analysis. 42nd Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Miami, FL, May 21-25, 1992. Recuperado el 28 de octubre de 2013, de http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/44.

López, J.M. y Qizilbash, N. (1996). La medicina basada en pruebas: revisiones sistemáticas. La Colaboración Cochrane. Medicina Clínica. 107 (15), 581-585.

Ríos, E. (2001). Metaanálisis. Revista del Instituto Médico “Sucre”. LXVI (118-119), 110-118.

Shadish, W., Chacón-Moscoso, S., Sánchez-Meca, J. (2005). Evidence-based decisión making: Enhancing systematic reviews of program evaluation results in Europe. Evaluation. 11 (1), pp. 95-109.

Downloads

Published

2013-11-28

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 2 (2013): Julio-Diciembre de 2013

Section

Investigación empírica y análisis teórico

License

Those authors who have publications with the Journal of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences of the Academic Unit of Legal and Social Sciences, accept the following terms:

a. The authors will retain their copyright and guarantee the journal the right to first publish their work, which will be simultaneously subject to the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. which allows third parties to share the work as long as its author and his first publication are indicated this journal.

b. Authors may adopt other non-exclusive license agreements for the distribution of the version of the published work (e.g., deposit it in an institutional telematic archive or publish it in a monographic volume) provided that the initial publication in this journal is indicated.

C. Authors are allowed and recommended to disseminate their work through personal communication (e.g. colleagues) before and during the submission process, for purposes of feedback or enrichment of the work, which can produce interesting exchanges