A Topical and Methodological Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses Published in the Educational Measurement Literature

Abstract

This systematic review investigated the topics studied and reporting practices of published meta-analyses in educational measurement. Our findings indicated that meta-analysis is not a highly utilized methodological tool in educational measurement; on average, less than one meta-analysis has been published per year over the past 30 years (28 meta-analyses were published between 1986 and 2016). Within the field, researchers have utilized meta-analysis to study three primary subject areas: test format effects, test accommodations, and predictive validity of operational testing programs. In regard to reporting practices, authors often failed to provide descriptive details of both their search strategy and sample characteristics limiting reproducibility and generalizability of findings, respectively. Furthermore, diagnostic analyses of outliers, publication bias, and statistical power were not provided for the majority of studies, putting into question the validity of inferences made from the meta-analyses sampled. The lack of transparent and replicable practices of meta-analyses in educational measurement is a concern for generating credible research syntheses that can assist the field in improving evidence-based practices. Recommendations are provided for improving training and editorial standards of meta-analytic research.

The Potential of International Large-Scale Assessments for Meta-Analyses in Education

“…However, meta-analyses in education and other disciplines face several challenges compromising their validity (e.g., Ahn et al, 2012;Rios et al, 2020;Sharpe, 1997): smallsample primary studies (e.g., low power to detect practically relevant effect sizes, high uncertainty, risk of invalid generalizations to student populations), study characteristics that may affect the quality and magnitude of effects (e.g., convenience samples, lack of stratification, matching, or control groups), and insufficient psychometric quality of the outcome measures (e.g., low reliability, limited construct coverage)-just to name a few. International large-scale assessments (ILSAs), such as ICILS (International Computer and Information Literacy Study), TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study), and PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment), address many of the issues meta-analyses face and have similar purposes as meta-analyses (Braun & Singer, 2019;Wagemaker, 2016).…”

Literature searches in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A review, evaluation, and recommendations

“…org), as well as individual articles from various disciplines (e.g. Lefebvre et al, 2008;Rios et al, 2019). Here, we review the known best practices of search strategies, and provide insight on how well recent review articles published in top applied psychology and management journals followed these practices.…”

Literature searches in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A review, evaluation, and recommendations

“…org), as well as individual articles from various disciplines (e.g. Lefebvre et al, 2008;Rios et al, 2019). Here, we review the known best practices of search strategies, and provide insight on how well recent review articles published in top applied psychology and management journals followed these practices.…”