Your browser does not allow JavaScript!
JavaScript is necessary for the proper functioning of this website. Please enable JavaScript or use a modern browser.
Open Science Slovenia
Open Science
DiKUL
slv
|
eng
Search
Browse
New in RUL
About RUL
In numbers
Help
Sign in
Meta-analyses in survey methodology : a systematic review
ID
Čehovin, Gregor
(
Author
),
ID
Bošnjak, Michael
(
Author
),
ID
Lozar Manfreda, Katja
(
Author
)
PDF - Presentation file,
Download
(276,87 KB)
MD5: 7E797688B974BD898E57FFCE6492FCB0
PDF - Presentation file,
Download
(576,85 KB)
MD5: ABD46AAD38BE19C46D598F9545CC3E7C
Image galllery
Abstract
Meta-analytic techniques have become the standard methods for aggregating the results from thematically related studies in the behavioral, health, and economic sciences. To analyze the state of the art of using meta-analyses in survey methodology, previous meta-analyses are systematically identified and classified according to the thematic areas the analyses address. This is followed by identifying gaps in research (i.e., areas where there are few or no existing meta-analyses) and investigating potential avenues for future meta-analyses in this field. The findings are based on a systematic search of two bibliographic harvesters (together covering 265 bibliographic databases), which yielded 54 eligible manuscripts reporting 60 meta-analytic studies and 91 effect sizes. To identify the thematic areas, the effect sizes are structured according to seven categories of the total survey error (TSE). Characteristics of primary studies that potentially influence the variability of meta-analytic findings also are considered, such as the survey mode, questionnaire design, and sample characteristics. The results show that the thematic areas of these meta-analyses cover only two of the seven TSE categories: measurement and nonresponse error. Thematic areas in the remaining TSE categories are not covered, and the key practical implication is that gaps exist in current research. Regarding the methodology of existing meta-analyses in the survey methodology field, there are fundamental differences in reporting styles in terms of transparency and replicability, calling for a concerted effort to develop meta-analytic reporting standards for survey methodology.
Language:
English
Work type:
Article
Typology:
1.01 - Original Scientific Article
Organization:
FDV - Faculty of Social Sciences
Publication status:
Published
Publication version:
Author Accepted Manuscript
Year:
2018
Number of pages:
Str. 641-660
Numbering:
Vol. 82, no. 4
PID:
20.500.12556/RUL-116169
UDC:
303
ISSN on article:
0033-362X
DOI:
10.1093/poq/nfy042
COBISS.SI-ID:
35940445
Publication date in RUL:
20.05.2020
Views:
1735
Downloads:
945
Metadata:
Cite this work
Plain text
BibTeX
EndNote XML
EndNote/Refer
RIS
ABNT
ACM Ref
AMA
APA
Chicago 17th Author-Date
Harvard
IEEE
ISO 690
MLA
Vancouver
:
Copy citation
Share:
Record is a part of a journal
Title:
Public opinion quarterly
Shortened title:
Public opin. q.
Publisher:
Oxford University Press
ISSN:
0033-362X
COBISS.SI-ID:
26215936
Similar documents
Similar works from RUL:
Similar works from other Slovenian collections:
Back