A tutorial on conducting meta-analyses of clinical outcome research.

Throughout the educational, medical, psychological, and social sciences, meta-analysis is the present-day, broadly accepted means for combining many quasi-experiments in a synthesis for the purpose of establishing the weight of scientific evidence bearing on a certain research question. Meta-analysis thereby is the preferred method for determining the preponderance of evidence in clinical-outcome research relating to questions of treatment efficacy and treatment effectiveness. Relatively few meta-analyses appear in the literature of the communication disorder sciences. The purpose of this tutorial is to enhance the familiarity and accessibility of this technology in the domains of audiology and speech-language pathology. The results of the accompanying example constitute a preliminary meta-analysis of patient-perceived treatment effectiveness. The substance of the tutorial, however, transcends disciplinary interests regarding types of communication disorder.

[1]  S D Dalebout,et al.  Comparison of the intersubject and intrasubject variability of exogenous and endogenous auditory evoked potentials. , 1997, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[2]  C. Newman,et al.  The Influence of Hearing Aid Cost on Perceived Benefit in Older Adults , 1993, Ear and hearing.

[3]  W. Shadish,et al.  How interchangeable are different estimators of effect size? , 1996, Journal of consulting and clinical psychology.

[4]  K S Taylor,et al.  Self‐perceived and Audiometric Evaluations of Hearing Aid Benefit in the Elderly , 1993, Ear and hearing.

[5]  G. Andrews,et al.  Meta-analysis of the effects of stuttering treatment. , 1980, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[6]  Scott E. Maxwell,et al.  Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Perspective , 1990 .

[7]  Robert L. Bangert-Drowns,et al.  Review of developments in meta-analytic method. , 1986 .

[8]  John E. Hunter,et al.  Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings , 1991 .

[9]  E. Owens,et al.  Hearing performance inventory. , 1979, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[10]  Robert G. Orwin,et al.  EVALUATING CODING DECISIONS , 2019, The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis.

[11]  Joel B. Greenhouse,et al.  Sensitivity analysis and diagnostics. , 1994 .

[12]  B. Weinstein,et al.  Measurement of hearing aid benefit in the elderly. , 1989, Ear and hearing.

[13]  G. Glass,et al.  Meta-analysis in social research , 1981 .

[14]  W. Stock.  Systematic coding for research synthesis. , 1994 .

[15]  I. M. Ventry,et al.  Test-retest reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly. , 1986, Ear and hearing.

[16]  M. Schultz,et al.  A model for conducting clinical-outcome research: An adaptation of the standard protocol for use in aphasiology , 1998 .

[17]  M. Demorest,et al.  Psychometric principles in the selection, interpretation, and evaluation of communication self-assessment inventories. , 1984, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[18]  R A Bentler,et al.  Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. I: Objective measures. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[19]  C. Mulrow,et al.  Quality-of-Life Changes and Hearing Impairment , 1990 .

[20]  R. R. Robey.  The Efficacy of Treatment for Aphasic Persons: A Meta-analysis , 1994, Brain and Language.

[21]  L. Hedges,et al.  Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis , 1987 .

[22]  R. R. Robey.  A meta-analysis of clinical outcomes in the treatment of aphasia. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[23]  Diana B. Petitti,et al.  Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods for Quantitative Synthesis in Medicine , 1994 .

[24]  Larry V. Hedges,et al.  Fixed-Effects Models , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[25]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[26]  Stephen W. Raudenbush,et al.  Random effects models. , 1994 .

[27]  A. Kertesz.  Neurobiological aspects of recovery from aphasia in stroke. , 1984, International rehabilitation medicine.

[28]  B. Weinstein.  Treatment efficacy: hearing aids in the management of hearing loss in adults. , 1996, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[29]  T Hnath-Chisolm,et al.  The effects of intervention strategy on self-perception of hearing handicap. , 1992, Ear and hearing.

[30]  I. M. Ventry,et al.  The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: a New Tool , 1982, Ear and hearing.

[31]  Randall R. Robey,et al.  Optimizing theories and experiments , 1993 .

[32]  Roger E. Kirk,et al.  Statistics: An Introduction , 1998 .

[33]  Thomas D. Cook,et al.  Threats to the validity of research syntheses , 1994 .

[34]  Heinz Kohler.  Essentials of Statistics , 1988 .

[35]  B. Weinstein,et al.  The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly as a measure of hearing aid benefit. , 1988, Ear and hearing.

[36]  R. Wertz.  Language treatment for aphasia is efficacious, but for whom? , 1987 .

[37]  Paul M. Wortman,et al.  Judging research quality. , 1994 .

[38]  C. Mulrow,et al.  Quality-of-life changes and hearing impairment. A randomized trial. , 1990, Annals of internal medicine.

[39]  M. Lorch,et al.  A meta-analysis of studies carried out between 1946 and 1988 concerned with the efficacy of speech and language therapy treatment for aphasic patients. , 1992, European journal of disorders of communication : the journal of the College of Speech and Language Therapists, London.