Narrative reviews and meta-analytic reviews are two types of quantitative reviews. Almost all quantitative reviews were narrative before meta-analysis became popular.
Narrative reviews emphasized better-designed studies and organized their findings to form a unified picture of the state of knowledge on the problem or topic under consideration. The number of statistically significant results versus nonsignificant results may have been noted. Each study could have been described in a few sentences or a paragraph on its own.
Nonetheless, despite their widespread use, narrative reviews are significantly influenced by the reviewer's subjectivity. According to research, the conclusions of one narrative review can be completely different from the conclusions of another review written by a different author, even when the same articles are reviewed.
Meta-analytic reviews have risen to prominence in recent years. In a meta-analytic review, the reviewer (a) collects a representative or comprehensive sample of articles, (b) codes those articles according to a variety of factors (e.g., study quality, type of intervention used, type of measure used, study outcomes), (c) finds a common metric (e.g., a standardized mean difference
Figure given below shows an example of a graph commonly used in meta-analysis known as a Forest Plot. The forest plot depicts the types of information typically obtained from meta-analyses. metric (e.g., a standardized mean difference effect size) that allows study outcomes to be synthesized, and then investigates how study characteristics vary with study outcomes. The figure depicts the findings of 13 studies that looked into the effects of response cards on academic achievement (in this case, quiz scores). The triangle represents the effect, and the lines on either side represent the 95% confidence intervals. The most common metric for the forest plot is Cohen's d, which is a standardized mean difference effect size.
Also Read: Qualitative Literature Review
%20(1).jpg)
0 Comments :
Post a Comment