Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Science Research Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, 1984, 148 pp.

is also notable for its discussion of problems in the retrieval of data from studies and the difficulties posed by different choices of unit of analysis. The material dealing with data analysis and interpretation begins with an argument for the importance of quantitative methods in analyzing the results of a large number of studies. A particularly important addition is the discussion of situa­ tions in which quantitative methods should not be used. There are readable introductions to many of the standard quanti­ tative techniques of research synthesis: vote counting, omni­ bus combined significance tests, RosenthaΓs fail-safe number, and the possibility of combining raw data. The standardized mean difference and correlation coefficient as indices of ef­ fect magnitude for combining study results are described, as well as methodology for combining effect size estimates and for testing variation among effect sizes. Each of the methods is clearly illustrated with an explicit example. The chapter is also notable for its criticism of the use of conven­ tional statistical methods (such as analysis of variance and regression analysis) with effect sizes or correlations. Public presentation of research reviews is an important part of meta-analysis, and advice and examples of how best to sum­ marize the evidence in research reviews are provided. This material takes on special relevance because conventions in reporting evidence in research reviews are not well estab­ lished. Cooper uses the basic division of primary research reports into four sections (introduction, methods, results, and discussion) as the basic structure for reporting research reviews. Several examples of tabular summaries are provided to illustrate the choices faced by the reviewer. In general, The Integrative Research Review provides an excellent introduction to methods for conducting rigorous re­ search reviews. It is generally clear and well-reasoned and cites references that can be the basis for further study. The principal limitations of the book stem from its brevity. Some topics must be treated in less than ideal detail in a book of 143 pages. The treatment of coding sheets for research reviews is well-reasoned but brief. Only one example of a coding sheet is given. Coding sheets are the instrument for collection of data on between-study variations. Adequate cod­ ing of study characteristics is therefore essential in detect­ ing patterns of variation in study outcomes. For example, some treatments such as open education, modern mathema­ tics instruction, or psychotherapy are by nature diffuse. The book contains neither a discussion of how to capture dimen­ sions of variation in diffuse treatments nor a discussion of the pervasive problem of incomplete reporting of details of study design and treatment implementation. In many re­ views, such incomplete reporting leads to a trade-off between what it would be desirable to code for each study and what it is possible to code. Some guidance on this matter would have been desirable. Finally, although the chapter on analysis and interpreta­ tion is up to date, it does not address many of the more sophis­ ticated and useful analyses for effect sizes, such as analogues to the analysis of variance and multiple regression. These methods are often needed in meta-analysis, and some cover­ age of them would have been desirable. This omission was undoubtedly planned, however, because the companion vol­ ume by Rosenthal goes into greater depth in its presenta­ tion of statistical methods. Under the circumstances, the deci­ sion to limit coverage of statistical methods is understandable. In spite of a few limitations, The Integrative Research Re­ view is an important contribution. Experienced researchers and reviewers will learn something by reading it. Its clear presentation of issues makes it particularly useful as a text for advanced undergraduates or beginning graduate students who are psychologically oriented. Perhaps most important is that it helps to demonstrate that thinking about rigorous procedures is as essential in every phase of research review­ ing as it is in every stage of original research.