Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Handbook of Clinical Psychology Competencies pp 483–500Cite as

Literature Reviews and Meta Analysis

  • Reference work entry

Abstract:

This chapter discusses the most common research methodology in psychology: the literature review. Reviews generally have three purposes: (1) to critically evaluate and summarize a body of research; (2) to reach some conclusions about that research; and, finally, (3) to offer suggestions for future work. The basic and expert competencies required for completing a high quality literature review are described by discussing seven major components of reviews along with relevant questions that should be answered to assess the successful completion of each component. A major focus is on meta-analysis, but guidelines are pertinent in assessing the quality of various types of reviews including reviews of theories and clinical applications. Readers are directed to additional helpful resources in order to aide them in becoming critical consumers or producers of good literature reviews.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   949.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   549.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  • American Psychological Association (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bem, D. J. (1995). Writing a review article for Psychological Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 172–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature re-view in research preparation. Educational Research-er, 34, 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, H. (2008). The search for meaningful ways to express the effects of interventions. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 181–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.). (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuipers, P., van Straten, A., & Warmerdam, L. (2007). Behavioral activation treatments of depression: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 318–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, G., & Finch, S. (2005). Inference by eye; confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60, 170–180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dickersin, K. (1997). How important is publication bias?: A synthesis of available data. AIDS Education and Prevention, 9, 15–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drotar, D. (2000). Reviewing and editing manuscripts for scientific journals. In Drotar, D. (Ed.), Handbook of research in pediatric and child clinical psychology (pp. 409–424). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durlak, J. A. (1995). Understanding meta-analysis. In Grimm, L., & Yarnold P. (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics (pp. 319–352). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durlak, J. A. (2000). How to evaluate a meta-analysis. In Drotar, D. (Ed.), Handbook of research in pediatric and clinical child psychology (pp. 395–407). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durlak, J. A. (2003). Basic principles of meta analysis. In Roberts, M., & Ilardi, S. S. (Eds.), Methods of research in clinical psychology: A Handbook (pp. 196–209). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durlak, J. A. (in press). How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durlak, J. A., Celio, C. I., Pachan, M. K., & Schellinger, K. B. (in press). Sometimes it is the researchers, not the research that goes “Off the rails”: The value of clear, complete and precise information in scientific reports. In Streiner, D., & Sidani, S. (Eds.), When research studies go off the rails. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durlak, J. A., & Dupre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Com-munity Psychology, 41, 327–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durlak, J. A., Meerson, I., & Ewell-Foster, C. (2003). Meta-analysis. In Thomas, J. C., & Hersen, M. (Eds.), Understanding research in clinical and counseling psychology: A textbook (pp. 243–267). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (in press). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Taylor, R. D., Dymnicki, A. B., & Schellinger, K. B. (in press). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: a meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development. Unpublished manuscript, Loyola University, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durlak, J. A., & Wells, A. M. (1998). Evaluation of indicated preventive intervention (secondary prevention) mental health programs for children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 775–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fleiss, J. L. (1994). Measures of effect size for categorical data. In Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 245–260). New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galvan, J. L. (2004). Writing literature reviews. Glendale, CA: Pyczak.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddock, C. K., Rinsdkopf, D., & Shadish, W. R. (1998). Using odds ratios as effect sizes for meta-analysis of dichotomous data: A primer on methods and issues. Psychological Methods, 3, 339–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., Fuqua-Whitley, D., Wethington, H., Lowy, J., Crosby, A., Fullilove, M., et al. (2007). Effectiveness of universal school-based programs to prevent violent and aggressive behavior: A systematic review. Ameri-can Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(Suppl. 2S), 114–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haney, P., & Durlak, J. A. (1998). Changing self-esteem in children and adolescents: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 423–433.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, D. P. (Ed.). (1982). Using observers to study behavior: New directions for methodology of social and behavioral sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, 557–560.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. C., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Lipsey, M. W. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2, 172–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment. Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychol-ogist, 48, 1181–1209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (2006a). Literature reviews of, and for, educational research: A commentary on Boote and Beile’s “Scholars before researchers.” Educational Researcher, 35, 28–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, J. A. (2006b). On “Literature reviews of, and for, educational research”: A response to the critique. Educational Researcher, 35, 32–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, R. E., & Meyer, B. (2006). When effect sizes disagree: The case of r and d. Psychological Methods, 11, 386–401.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oxman, A. D. (1994). Checklists for review articles. British Medical Journal, 309, 648–651.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, J. L., Sutton, A. J., Jones, D. R., Abrams, K. R., & Rushton, L. (2007). Performance of the trim and fill method in the presence of publication bias and between-study variability. Statistics in Medicine, 26, 4544–4562.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Randolph, J. J., & Edmondson, R. S. (2005). Using the Binomial Effect Size Display (BESD) to present the magnitude of effect sizes to the evaluation audience. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10(14). Retrieved January 21, 2008, from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v = 10&n = 14.

  • Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. (2001). Meta-analytic procedures for social research (rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple general purpose display of magnitude and experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 166–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruscio, J. (2008). A probability-based measure of effect size: Robustness to base rates and other factors. Psychological Methods, 13, 19–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1991). Editorial. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 3–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., Hojjat, M., Brigockas, M. G., & Grigorenko, E. L. (1997). Getting in: Criteria for acceptance of manuscripts in Psychological Bulletin. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 321–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, B., Wylie, E., Dempster, M., & Donnelly, M. (2007). Systematically retrieving research: A case study evaluating seven databases. Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 697–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., Lau, J., & Oklin, I. (2003). Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 2113–2126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tobler, N. S., Roona, M. R., Ochshorn, P., Marshall, D. G., Streke, A. V., & Stackpole, K. M. (2000). School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 20, 275–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vacha-Haase, T., & Thompson, B. (2004). How to estimate and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 473–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, J., & Cooper, H. (2003). Effect size substantive interpretation guidelines: Issues in the interpretation of effect sizes. Washington, DC: What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved August 22, 2008, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/iDocViewer/Doc.aspx?docId = 1&tocId = 5.

  • Volker, M. A. (2006). Reporting effect sizes in school psychology research. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 653–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisz, J. R., Jensen-Doss, A., & Hawley, K. M. (2006). Evidence-based youth psychotherapies versus usual clinical care. American Psychologist, 61, 671–689.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. B., Gottfredson, D. C., & Najaka, S. S. (2001). School-based prevention of problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 247–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. B., & Lipsey, M. W. (2001). The role of method in treatment effectiveness research: Evi-dence from meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 6, 413–429.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Loyola University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Joseph A. Durlak

Authors
  1. Joseph A. Durlak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Professional Psychology, Pacific University, 511 SW 10th Avenue, 4th fl oor, 97205, Portland, OR, USA

    Jay C. Thomas Ph.D., ABPP (Professor and Assistant Dean) (Professor and Assistant Dean)

  2. School of Professional Psychology, HCP/Pacific University, 222 SE 8th Ave., Suite 563, 97123-4218, Hillsboro, OR, USA

    Michel Hersen Ph.D., ABPP (Professor and Dean) (Professor and Dean)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this entry

Cite this entry

Durlak, J.A. (2010). Literature Reviews and Meta Analysis. In: Thomas, J.C., Hersen, M. (eds) Handbook of Clinical Psychology Competencies. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09757-2_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-09757-2_18

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-387-09756-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-387-09757-2

  • eBook Packages: Behavioral Science

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation