Methods for addressing publication bias in school psychology journals: A descriptive review of meta-analyses from 1980 to 2019.

Although meta-analyses are often used to inform practitioners and researchers, the resulting effect sizes can be artificially inflated due to publication bias. There are a number of methods to protect against, detect, and correct for publication bias. Currently, it is unknown to what extent scholars publishing meta-analyses within school psychology journals use these methods to address publication bias and whether more recently published meta-analyses more frequently utilize these methods. A historical review of every meta-analysis published to date within the most prominent school psychology journals (N = 10) revealed that 88 meta-analyses were published from 1980 to early 2019. Exactly half of them included grey literature, and 60% utilized methods to detect and correct for publication bias. The most common methods were visual analysis of a funnel plot, Orwin's failsafe N, Egger's regression, and the trim and fill procedure. None of these methods were used in more than 20% of the studies. About half of the studies incorporated one method, 20% incorporated two methods, 7% incorporated three methods, and none incorporated all four methods. These methods were most evident in studies published recently. Similar to other fields, the true estimates of effects from meta-analyses published in school psychology journals may not be available, and practitioners may be utilizing interventions that are, in fact, not as strong as believed. Practitioners, researchers employing meta-analysis techniques, education programs, and editors and peer reviewers in school psychology should continue to guard against publication bias using these methods.

Multidimensional assessment of self-regulated learning with middle school math students.

This study examined the convergent and predictive validity of self-regulated learning (SRL) measures situated in mathematics. The sample included 100 eighth graders from a diverse, urban school district. Four measurement formats were examined including, 2 broad-based (i.e., self-report questionnaire and teacher ratings) and 2 task-specific measures (i.e., SRL microanalysis and behavioral traces). Convergent validity was examined across task-difficulty, and the predictive validity was examined across 3 mathematics outcomes: 2 measures of mathematical problem solving skill (i.e., practice session math problems, posttest math problems) and a global measure of mathematical skill (i.e., standardized math test). Correlation analyses were used to examine convergent validity and revealed medium correlations between measures within the same category (i.e., broad-based or task-specific). Relations between measurement classes were not statistically significant. Separate regressions examined the predictive validity of the SRL measures. While controlling all other predictors, a SRL microanalysis metacognitive-monitoring measure emerged as a significant predictor of all 3 outcomes and teacher ratings accounted for unique variance on 2 of the outcomes (i.e., posttest math problems and standardized math test). Results suggest that a multidimensional assessment approach should be considered by school psychologists interested in measuring SRL. (PsycINFO Database Record