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.

尽管荟萃分析经常用于告知从业者和研究人员，但由于发表偏倚，可能会人为夸大由此产生的效应量。有多种方法可以防止、检测和纠正发表偏倚。目前，尚不清楚在学校心理学期刊上发表荟萃分析的学者在多大程度上使用这些方法来解决发表偏倚，以及最近发表的荟萃分析是否更频繁地使用这些方法。迄今为止在最著名的学校心理学期刊 ( N) 上发表的每项元分析的历史回顾 = 10) 显示从 1980 年到 2019 年初发表了 88 项荟萃分析。其中恰好一半包含灰色文献，60% 使用方法检测和纠正发表偏倚。最常用的方法是漏斗图的可视化分析、Orwin 的故障安全 N、Egger 的回归以及修剪和填充程序。这些方法都没有用于超过 20% 的研究。大约一半的研究结合了一种方法，20% 的研究结合了两种方法，7% 的研究结合了三种方法，没有一项研究结合了所有四种方法。这些方法在最近发表的研究中最为明显。与其他领域类似，可能无法获得在学校心理学期刊上发表的荟萃分析的真实影响估计，并且从业者可能正在利用实际上并不像人们认为的那样强大的干预措施。