This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Lee Friedman, PhD; John A. Jesberger; Herbert Y. Meltzer, MD
Department of Psychiatry School of Medicine Case Western Reserve University 10900 Euclid Ave Cleveland, OH 44106 Helio Elkis, MD, PhD São Paulo, Brazil

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996;53(12):1166-1167.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply

The critique by Persaud of our meta-analysis^' is based on the following 2 contentions: (1) There is a generally accepted quantitative criterion for the fail-safe N (N_fs) and (2) the quantitative criterion of Rosenthal²—a criterion that would require us to achieve an N_fs equal to 65—is a reasonable criterion to apply to our meta-analysis. In our opinion, both contentions are refutable.

One point that needs to be made before we proceed is that several types of meta-analysis exist. Rosenthal discusses N_fs in the context of a "combined significance" metaanalysis, whereas we conducted an "effect size" metaanalysis.³ (See the book by Hedges and Olkin³ for a critique of the combined significance approach and a defense of the effect size approach.) Separate formulas for the calculation of N_fs are required for these 2 types of meta-analysis. This is not debatable. What is debatable is . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?