How to Evaluate Theory-Based Hypotheses in Meta-Analysis Using an AIC-Type Criterion

Abstract

Meta-analysis techniques allow researchers to aggregate effect sizes—like standardized mean difference(s), correlation(s), or odds ratio(s)—of different studies. This leads to overall effect-size estimates and their confidence intervals. Additionally, researchers can aim for theory development or theory evaluation. That is, researchers may not only be interested in these overall estimates but also in a specific ordering or size of them, which then reflects a theory. Researchers may have expectations regarding the ordering of standardized mean differences or about the (ranges of) sizes of an odds ratio or Hedges’ g. Such theory-based hypotheses most probably contain inequality constraints and can be evaluated with the Akaike’s information criterion type (i.e., AIC-type) confirmatory model selection criterion called generalized order-restricted information criterion (GORICA). This paper introduces and illustrates how the GORICA can be applied to meta-analyzed estimates. Additionally, it compares the use of the GORICA to that of classical null hypothesis testing and the AIC, that is, the use of theory-based hypotheses versus null hypotheses. By using the GORICA, researchers from all types of fields (e.g., psychology, sociology, political science, biomedical science, and medicine) can quantify the support for theory-based hypotheses specified a priori. This leads to increased statistical power, because of (i) the use of theory-based hypotheses (cf. one-sided vs. two-sided testing) and (ii) the use of meta-analyzed results (that are based on multiple studies which increase the combined sample size). The quantification of support and the power increase aid in, for instance, evaluating and developing theories and, therewith, developing evidence-based treatments and policy.