Abstract We examined the interplay between how communication researchers use meta-analyses to make claims and the prevalence, causes, and implications of unresolved heterogeneous findings. Heterogeneous findings can result from substantive moderators, methodological artifacts, and combined construct invalidity. An informal content analysis of meta-analyses published in four elite communication journals revealed that unresolved between-study effect heterogeneity was ubiquitous. Communication researchers mainly focus on computing mean effect sizes, to the exclusion of how effect sizes in primary studies are distributed and of what might be driving effect size distributions. We offer four recommendations for future meta-analyses. Researchers are advised to be more diligent and sophisticated in testing for heterogeneity. We encourage greater description of how effects are distributed, coupled with greater reliance on graphical displays. We council greater recognition of combined construct invalidity and advocate for content expertise. Finally, we endorse greater awareness and improved tests for publication bias and questionable research practices.

中文翻译：

---

Meta 分析中未解决的异质性：组合构建无效、混杂和其他挑战理解平均效应大小

摘要 我们研究了传播研究人员如何使用荟萃分析提出主张与未解决的异质性发现的普遍性、原因和影响之间的相互作用。异质的发现可能来自实质性的调节因素、方法论的伪影和组合的结构无效。对发表在四家精英传播期刊上的荟萃分析进行的非正式内容分析表明，未解决的研究间效应异质性无处不在。传播研究人员主要关注计算平均效应量，排除初级研究中效应量的分布方式以及可能推动效应量分布的因素。我们为未来的荟萃分析提供四项建议。建议研究人员在测试异质性时更加勤奋和复杂。我们鼓励更多地描述效果是如何分布的，同时更多地依赖图形显示。我们理事会对组合结构无效性的更大认识，并倡导内容专业知识。最后，我们支持提高对发表偏倚和可疑研究实践的认识和改进测试。