İkinci Dereceden Meta Analiz

Öz

Araştırmacılar için aynı konu hakkındaki araştırmaların bulgularını sentezlemek ve organize etmek oldukça önemlidir. Öte yandan farklı örneklem, araştırma deseni ve istatistiksel tekniklerin kullanıldığı araştırmaların bulgu ve sonuçlarını yorumlamak oldukça zor bir süreçtir. Meta-analiz araştırmalarından elde edilen bulguların birleştirilmesi daha doğru sonuçlara ulaşmaya katkı sağlamaktadır. Aynı konuya ya da probleme ilişkin yürütülen meta analiz çalışmalarının bulgularının birleştirilmesinde ise ikinci dereceden meta-analiz yöntemi kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı ikinci dereceden meta analiz araştırmasını tanıtmaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda literatür taraması yapılmıştır. İkinci dereceden meta analiz araştırmasının tanımı yapılmıştır. Öte yandan ikinci dereceden meta analiz araştırmasının aşamaları belirlenmiştir. Bunların yanında ikinci dereceden meta analiz araştırmalarında dikkat edilmesi gereken noktalar ve bu noktalara ilişkin literatürden hareketle çözüm önerileri ortaya konmuştur. İkinci dereceden meta analiz araştırmalarında dikkat edilecek konular; örtüşme problemi, etki büyüklüğü indeksi seçme, etki büyüklüğü birleştirme, meta analizlerin kalitesini belirleme, moderatör değişkenleri belirleme, istatistiksel model seçimi ve etki büyüklüğünü kodlama olarak belirlenmiş ve açıklanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• İkinci Dereceden Meta-Analiz
• Meta-Analiz
• Yöntem

Kaynakça

1. Bakioğlu, A. ve Göktaş, E. (2018). Bir eğitim politikası belirleme yöntemi: Meta-analiz. Medeniyet Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 35-54. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mead/issue/34203/365278
2. Berman, N. ve Parker, R. (2002). Meta-analysis: Neither quick nor easy. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 2(1), 10. https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2288-2-10
3. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. ve Rothstein, H. R. (2021). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley ve Sons.
4. Card, N., A. (2015). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. Guilford Publications
5. Chalmers, I., Hedges, L. V. ve Cooper, H. (2002). A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation ve The Health Professions, 25(1), 12-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278702025001003
6. Cooper, H. ve Koenka, A. C. (2012). The overview of reviews: Unique challenges and opportunities when research syntheses are the principal elements of new integrative scholarship. American Psychologist, 67(6), 446-462. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027119
7. Dalton, D. R. ve Dalton, C. M. (2008). Meta-analyses: Some very good steps toward a bit longer journey. Organizational Research Methods, 11(1), 127-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107304409
8. Field, A., P. ve Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63, 665-694. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711010X502733

9. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003
10. Goulet-Pelletier, J. C. ve Cousineau, D. (2018). A review of effect sizes and their confidence intervals, Part I: The Cohen’s d family. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 14(4), 242-265.
11. Hedges, L. V. (1992). Meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 17(4), 279-296. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986017004279
12. Hedges, L. V. ve Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press
13. Hew, K. F., Bai, S., Huang, W., Dawson, P., Du, J., Huang, G., Jia, C. ve Thankrit, K. (2021). On the use of flipped classroom across various disciplines: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 37(2), 132-151. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.6475
14. Hunter, J. E. ve Schmidt, F. L. (2000). Fixed effects vs. random effects meta‐analysis models: Implications for cumulative research knowledge. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8(4), 275-292.
15. Hunter, J. E. ve Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2 ed.). Sage Publications.
16. Kohl, L. F., Crutzen, R. ve de Vries, N. K. (2013). Online prevention aimed at lifestyle behaviors: A systematic review of reviews. Journal of medical Internet research, 15(7), Article e2665. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2665
17. Kung, J., Chiappelli, F., Cajulis, O. O., Avezova, R., Kossan, G., Chew, L. ve Maida, C. A. (2010). From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: Validation of revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance. The Open Dentistry Journal, 16(4), 84-91.
18. Lipsey, M. W. ve Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. SAGE publications, Inc.
19. Ma, L. L., Wang, Y. Y., Yang, Z. H., Huang, D., Weng, H. ve Zeng, X. T. (2020). Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better? Military Medical Research, 7(1), 1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40779-020-00238-8
20. Marfo, P. ve Okyere, G. A. (2019). The accuracy of effect-size estimates under normals and contaminated normals in meta-analysis. Heliyon, 5(6), Article e01838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01838
21. McNamara, J. F., Morales, P., Kim, Y. ve McNamara, M. (1998). Conducting your first meta-analysis: An illustrated guide. International Journal of Educational Reform, 7(4), 380-397.
22. Oh, I. S. (2020). Beyond meta-analysis: Secondary uses of meta-analytic data. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7(1), 125-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045006
23. O’Rourke, K. (2007). An historical perspective on meta-analysis: Dealing quantitatively with varying study results. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 100(12), 579-582. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076807100012020
24. Pearson, K. (1904). Report on certain enteric fever inoculation statistics. British Medical Journal, 2(2288), 1243-1246. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2355479/
25. Polanin, J. R., Maynard, B. R. ve Dell, N. A. (2017). Overviews in education research: A systematic review and analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 172-203. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316631117
26. Rosenthal, R. ve DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.59
27. Rosenthal, R. ve Rubin, D. B. (1978). Interpersonal expectancy effects: The first 345 studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(3), 377-386. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00075506
28. Sánchez-Meca, J. ve Marín-Martínez, F. (2010). Meta-analysis in psychological research. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 150-162.
29. Schmidt, F. L. ve Hunter, J. E. (1977). Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(5), 529-540. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.62.5.529
30. Schmidt, F. L. ve Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage.
31. Schmidt, F. L. ve Oh, I. S. (2013). Methods for second order meta-analysis and illustrative applications. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121(2), 204-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.002
32. Shelby, L. B. ve Vaske, J. J. (2008). Understanding meta-analysis: A review of the methodological literature. Leisure Sciences, 30(2), 96-110. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400701881366
33. Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417-453. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
34. Smith, M. L. ve Glass, G. V. (1977). Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. American Psychologist, 32(9), 752-760. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0003-066X.32.9.752
35. Smith, M. L., Glass, G. V. ve Miller, T. I. (1980). The benefits of psychotherapy. Johns Hopkins University Press.
36. Steenbergen-Hu, S., Makel, M. C. ve Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). What one hundred years of research says about the effects of ability grouping and acceleration on K–12 students’ academic achievement: Findings of two second-order meta-analyses. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 849-899. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675417
37. Şen, S. ve Yıldırım, İ. (2020). CMA ile meta-analiz uygulamaları. Anı yayıncılık.
38. Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C. ve Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4-28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310393361
39. Tan, C. Y., Gao, L. ve Shi, M. (2020). Second-order meta-analysis synthesizing the evidence on associations between school leadership and different school outcomes. Educational Management Administration ve Leadership, 50(3), 469-490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1741143220935456
40. Tufanaru, C., Munn, Z., Stephenson, M. ve Aromataris, E. (2015). Fixed or random effects meta-analysis? Common methodological issues in systematic reviews of effectiveness. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 196-207. https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000065
41. Üstün, U. ve Eryılmaz, A. (2014). Etkili araştırma sentezleri yapabilmek için bir araştırma yöntemi: Meta-analiz. Eğitim ve Bilim, 39(174). https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.3379
42. Wilson, D. B. ve Lipsey, M. W. (2001). The role of method in treatment effectiveness research: Evidence from meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 6(4), 413-429. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.413
43. Young, J. (2017). Technology-enhanced mathematics instruction: A second-order meta-analysis of 30 years of research. Educational Research Review, 22, 19-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.07.001