BİR EĞİTİM POLİTİKASI BELİRLEME YÖNTEMİ: META ANALİZ

Öz

Bilgiye ulaşma imkân ve araçları çok fazla olduğu için ulaşılan bilgilerin doğru yorumlanması büyük önem arz etmektedir. Bu nedenle bilgiye ulaşmaktan çok bilgiyi kullanma ve çeşitli yöntemler kullanarak yeni bilgilere ulaşabilmek ihtiyacı ön plana çıkmaktadır. Bu noktada bilginin yeniden inşası daha özel ve hassas analiz süreçlerini gerekli kılmaktadır. Hızla artan araştırmalar sonucu elde edilen bilgi hacmi gün geçtikçe daha büyük boyutlara ulaşmaktadır. Bu durum, elde edilen bilginin bütüncül biçimde yaklaşılarak yorumlanması ihtiyacını da beraberinde getirmektedir. Çünkü yapılan çalışmalardan elde edilen birikimin insanları hangi yöne doğru sevk ettiği veya elde edilen bilginin ülke ve dünya ölçeğinde konumumuza ne kadar hizmet ettiğinin bilinmesi de önem taşımaktadır. Bu amaçla geliştirilen çeşitli araştırma sentezlerinden biri meta-analizdir. Meta-analiz bir araştırma sentezi olarak, geniş kapsamlı çok sayıda araştırma sonuçlarının anlamlı biçimde birleştirilmesi ve yorumlanması işlevi ile önemi günden güne artan bir yöntemdir. Bu yöntemin önemli tarafı, güçlü bilimsel deliller ışığında politika belirleyicilere rehberlik sağlaması ve literatürdeki tutarsız sonuçları açıklayabilmesidir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• : meta-analiz,etki büyüklüğü

Kaynakça

1. APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be? American Psychologist, 63(9), 839-851. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2957094/
2. Bakioğlu, A., Özcan, Ş. (2016).Meta-analiz. İstanbul: Nobel Yayıncılık.
3. Becker,B.J.(2005). Failsafe N or File-Drawer Number In Rothstein,H.,Sutton,A.J.,Borenstein,M.(Eds) Publication Bias in Meta-analysis. (pp.111-125).John Wiley and Sons Ltd.2005
4. Begg, C.B. & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test for Publication Bias, Biometrics, 50, 1088-1101.
5. Borenstein, M. (2005). Software for Publication Bias. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication Bias for Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd
6. Borenstein,M.,Hedges, L.V.,Higgins,J.P.T.,Rothstein,H.R.(2009).Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-470-05724-7
7. Borenstein,M.,Hedges, L.V.,Higgins,J.P.T.,Rothstein,H.R.(2010).A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res. Syn. Meth. 2010, 1 97--111
8. Borenstein,M.,Hedges, L.V.,Higgins,J.P.T.,Rothstein,H.R.(2013).Meta-Analize Giriş (S.Dinçer, Çev.) Ankara: Anı

9. Borenstein,M.,Hedges, L.V.,Higgins,J.P.T.,Rothstein,H.R.(2004). Comprehensive Meta-analysis Version 2.0
10. Card, N. A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New York: The Guilford Press.
11. Clarke, M. (2009). Reporting format. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2 ed., pp. 521-534). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
12. Cohen, P.A, Kulik, J.A. & Kulik, C.C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A Meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, Summer 1982, Vol.19,No.2,pp.237-248
13. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hilllsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Dalton, D.R. et al. (2012). Revisiting The File Drawer Problem in Meta-Analysis: An Assessment of Published and Nonpublished Correlation Matrices. Personnel Psychology. 2012, 65, 221–249
15. Dinçer, S. (2014). Eğitim Bilimlerinde Uygulamalı Meta-Analiz. Ankara: Pegem Akademi
16. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000a). A nonparametric" trim and fill" method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(449), 89-98.
17. Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000b). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455-463.
18. Durlak,J.A., Lipsey,M.W.(1991). A practitioner’s guide to meta-analysis. Plenum Publishing Corporation.
19. Durlak,J.A. (2009).How to select, calculate and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 34(9) pp. 917–928, 2009 .
20. Egger, M., Davey-Smith, G., Schneider, M. et al.(1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ1997;315:629–34.
21. Eysenck, H. J. (1984). Meta-analysis: An abuse of research integration. The Journal of Special Education, 18(1), 41-59.
22. Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Systematic reviews: Meta-analysis and its problems. British Medical Journal, 309, 789-792
23. Feinstein, A. R. (1995). Meta-analysis: Statistical alchemy for the 21st century Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48(1), 71-79.
24. Fink, A. (2005). Conducting research literature reviews: From internet to paper (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
25. Glass,G.V.(1976). Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research. Educational Researcher, Vol. 5, No. 10 (Nov., 1976), pp. 3-8
26. Glass, G. V. (1982). Meta-analysis: An approach to the synthesis of research results. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(2), 93-112.
27. Glass, G. V. (2000). Meta-analysis at 25. 19 Temmuz 2015 tarihinde http://glass.ed.asu.edu/gene/papers/meta25.html sayfasından alınmıştır.
28. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
29. Grissom, R.J.&Kim,J.J.(2005). Effect sizes for research. A broad practical approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
30. Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3 , 486-504.
31. Hedges, L. V., & OIkin, 1. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
32. Hunter, J. E., & 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
33. Israel,H., Richter, R.(2011). A Guide to Understanding Meta-Analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic &
34. Lewis, S., Clarke,M.(2001).Forest plots:Trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ.2001;322:1479-1480
35. Lipsey, M. W. & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. Littell,J.H.,Corcoran,J., Pillai,V.(2008) Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Oxford University Press.
37. Maksimovic, J.(2011). The application of meta-analysis in educational research. Facta Universitatis Series: Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and History. Vol.10, No:1, 2011, pp.45-55
38. Normand, S.L.T.(1999). Meta-analysis: formulating, evaluating, combining, and reporting. In R.B.D’Agostino (Edt.) .Tutorial in biostatistics.(pp.249-288).John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
39. Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8(2), 157-159.
40. Orwin, R. G., & Vevea, J. L. (2009). Evaluating Coding Decisions. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
41. Perera,R.,Heneghan,C.&Badenoch,D.(2008).Statistics Toolkit. Blackwell Publishing.
42. Rodríguez, M.D.(2001).Glossary on meta-analysis. J.Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:534–536
43. Rosenthal R.(1979). The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull 1979;86:638–41.
44. Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
45. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), The Handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
46. Rosenthal ,R.(1995).Writing meta-analytical reviews. Psychological Bulletin. Vol.118.No:2,183-192
47. Rosenthal, R.& DiMatteo,M.R.(2001).Meta-analysis:Recent developments in quantitive methods for literatüre reviews.Annu.Rev.Psychol.2001.52:59-82
48. Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.
49. Shachar, M. (2008). Meta-analysis: The preferred method of choice for the assessment of distance learning quality factors. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. Volume 9, Number 3.
50. Shelby L.B.&, Vaske,J.J. (2008). Understanding meta-analysis: A review of the methodological literatüre. Leisure Sciences, 30:96-110.
51. Sterne, J. A. C. & Egger, M. (2005). Regression methods to detect publication and other bias in meta-analysis. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
52. Sutton, A. J. (2009). Publication bias. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 435-452). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
53. Thalheimer, W., & Cook, S. (2002). How to calculate effect sizes from published research articles: A simplified methodology. 01.07.2015 tarihinde http://www.bwgriffin.com/gsu/courses/edur9131/content/Effect_Sizes_pdf5.pdf adresinden alınmıştır.
54. Üstün, U., Eryılmaz, A.(2014). Etkili Araştırma Sentezleri Yapabilmek için Bir Araştırma Yöntemi: Meta-Analiz. Eğitim ve Bilim 2014, Cilt 39, Sayı 174, 1-32
55. Vaske, J. J., Gliner, J. A., & Morgan, G. A. (2002). Communicating judgments about practical significance: Effect size, confidence intervals and odds ratios. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 7(4), 287–300.