ArticleJournal of Intelligence2020
Effect Sizes, Power, and Biases in Intelligence Research: A Meta-Meta-Analysis.
Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A meta-analysis of conditioned fear generalization in anxiety-related disorders.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Is the Psychopathic Brain an Artifact of Coding Bias? A Systematic Review.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Pooled it
- Assessing Questionable and Responsible Research Practices in Psychology Master's Theses.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Psychiatric Symptoms, Cognition, and Symptom Severity in Children.JAMA psychiatry · 2024Article
- Better Accuracy for Better Science . . . Through Random Conclusions.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2024Article
- Inaccuracy in the Scientific Record and Open Postpublication Critique.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2023Article
- Article
- The 40-year debate: a meta-review on what works for juvenile offenders.Journal of experimental criminology · 2023Article
- Estimating the false discovery risk of (randomized) clinical trials in medical journals based on published p-values.PloS one · 2023Article
- Effect of aquatic resistance interval training and dietary education program on physical and psychological health in older women: Randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- Are People-Centered Intelligences Psychometrically Distinct from Thing-Centered Intelligences? A Meta-Analysis.Journal of Intelligence · 2021Review
- "statcheck": Automatically detect statistical reporting inconsistencies to increase reproducibility of meta-analyses.Research synthesis methods · 2020Article
- Verifying the accuracy of statistical significance testing in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews through the use of the R packageCampbell systematic reviews · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this meta-study, we analyzed 2442 effect sizes from 131 meta-analyses in intelligence research, published from 1984 to 2014, to estimate the average effect size, median power, and evidence for bias. We found that the average effect size in intelligence research was a Pearson's correlation of 0.26, and the median sample size was 60. Furthermore, across primary studies, we found a median power of 11.9% to detect a small effect, 54.5% to detect a medium effect, and 93.9% to detect a large effect. We documented differences in average effect size and median estimated power between different types of intelligence studies (correlational studies, studies of group differences, experiments, toxicology, and behavior genetics). On average, across all meta-analyses (but not in every meta-analysis), we found evidence for small-study effects, potentially indicating publication bias and overestimated effects. We found no differences in small-study effects between different study types. We also found no convincing evidence for the decline effect, US effect, or citation bias across meta-analyses. We concluded that intelligence research does show signs of low power and publication bias, but that these problems seem less severe than in many other scientific fields.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.