I attached the following paper for review:
U.S. Ethnic/Race Differences in Aptitude by Generation: An Exploratory Meta-analysis
We conducted an exploratory meta-analysis using 18 samples for which we were able to decompose scores by sociological race and immigrant generation. For Blacks and Whites of the same generation, the first, second, and third+ generation B/W d-values were 0.79, 0.75, and 0.97. For Hispanics and NH Whites of the same generation, the first, second, and third+ generation H/W d-values were 0.82, 0.64, and 0.55. For Asians and Whites of the same generation, the first, second, and third+ generation d-values were -0.11, -0.25, and -0.21. Relative to third generation Whites, the average d-values were 0.96, 0.79, and 0.97 for first, second, and third+ generation Black individuals, 1.0, 0.68, and 0.55 for first, second, and third+ generation Hispanic individuals, and 0.03, -0.25, and -0.21 for first, second, and third+ generation Asian individuals.
Included:
PDF
Supplementary excel file
Back to [Archive] Post-review discussions
The survey table is referred to as "table 1" but it has no caption as such. It is also of too low resolution. Similar for the results tables.
There needs to be clearer description of the inclusion criteria and what method was used to find the studies. Otherwise it is a non-systematic review.
One table actually has the caption used in the source paper on it, which makes it confusable with the tables in this study.
I would include a reference to this study somewhere, since it is an important earlier review of Hispanic cognitive ability and discussion of the linguistic bias problem for this population. Dunn, LM. 1988. Bilingual Hispanic children on the US mainline: a review of research on their cognitive, linguistic and scholastic development.
There needs to be clearer description of the inclusion criteria and what method was used to find the studies. Otherwise it is a non-systematic review.
One table actually has the caption used in the source paper on it, which makes it confusable with the tables in this study.
I would include a reference to this study somewhere, since it is an important earlier review of Hispanic cognitive ability and discussion of the linguistic bias problem for this population. Dunn, LM. 1988. Bilingual Hispanic children on the US mainline: a review of research on their cognitive, linguistic and scholastic development.
(1)The survey table is referred to as "table 1" but it has no caption as such. It is also of too low resolution. Similar for the results tables.
(2) There needs to be clearer description of the inclusion criteria and what method was used to find the studies. Otherwise it is a non-systematic review. (3) One table actually has the caption used in the source paper on it, which makes it confusable with the tables in this study. (4) I would include a reference to this study somewhere, since it is an important earlier review of Hispanic cognitive ability and discussion of the linguistic bias problem for this population. Dunn, LM. 1988. Bilingual Hispanic children on the US mainline: a review of research on their cognitive, linguistic and scholastic development.
As for (1) and (2), I will make the needed corrections. As for (4), I read over that and didn't see anything interesting. Also, I tried to not get overly involved with the explanations, since the paper was an exploratory meta-analysis and not an exploration of the cause of group differences. If anything I should cut discussions, not add to them. I can add a sentence or so, though -- how would you summarize, as pithily as possible, Dunn's findings with respect to language and H/W group differences? The paper was really difficult to read with the super close spacing and all. As for (3), this was an atypical meta-analysis since it involved me doing original research and meta-analyzing it -- i.e., combining the data. I don't think that a meta-analyses needs to be systematic. And this was not a review because I averaged results. I used this conceptualization:
"To represent this visually, the figure below shows that a meta-analysis may be part of a systematic review. A meta-analysis is also possible without doing a systematic review - you could just find a few studies and calculate a result, with no attempt to be systematic about how the particular studies were chosen"
http://www.cochrane-net.org/openlearning/html/mod3-2.htm
To cut down on possible bias I used national samples, which were mostly nationally representative. If you want I could call it: "an unsystematic exploratory meta-analysis" -- but I thought that "exploratory" implied that the analysis is not systematic. I could be wrong.
Maybe you can clarify what it is exactly that you would like me to add regarding this point. Maybe you would just like me to change the title. What's another terms for "an analysis in which a bunch of study results are combined together to produce summary results".
I updated the paper.
(1) I added table headings
(2) I added a passage which clarifies the selection process:
These surveys in particular were chosen because: (a) they allowed for scores to be decomposed by three generational groups (first, second, and third+) and four racial/ethnic groups (Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians), (b) they were mostly representative either of the U.S. national population or of the U.S. university population, (c) the data was publicly available, and (d) the test involved was at least a fair measure of general aptitude. We looked into other surveys but those generally did not meet one of the four criteria mentioned above or, alternatively, were too difficult to analyze. For example, the New Immigrant Survey did not contain third+ generation data and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth ‘97 did not readily allow for a decomposition by generations. As for published results, we did not conduct a complete review of published studies, thus we classify this as an exploratory not a systematic meta-analysis. The research which we did find and did not include did not meet one of our criteria – typically that that scores were broken down by U.S. sociological race and generation -- or did not present statistics necessary to compute effects sizes.
(3) I didn't add anything about Dunn's paper because his discussion was not directly relevant as he did not discuss linguistic bias by generation.
(4) The graphic resolution is a problem for some tables. Before I try to address it, I will wait for other criticisms and see if I need to fully redo the relevant tables due to statistical errors, etc.
(1) I added table headings
(2) I added a passage which clarifies the selection process:
These surveys in particular were chosen because: (a) they allowed for scores to be decomposed by three generational groups (first, second, and third+) and four racial/ethnic groups (Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians), (b) they were mostly representative either of the U.S. national population or of the U.S. university population, (c) the data was publicly available, and (d) the test involved was at least a fair measure of general aptitude. We looked into other surveys but those generally did not meet one of the four criteria mentioned above or, alternatively, were too difficult to analyze. For example, the New Immigrant Survey did not contain third+ generation data and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth ‘97 did not readily allow for a decomposition by generations. As for published results, we did not conduct a complete review of published studies, thus we classify this as an exploratory not a systematic meta-analysis. The research which we did find and did not include did not meet one of our criteria – typically that that scores were broken down by U.S. sociological race and generation -- or did not present statistics necessary to compute effects sizes.
(3) I didn't add anything about Dunn's paper because his discussion was not directly relevant as he did not discuss linguistic bias by generation.
(4) The graphic resolution is a problem for some tables. Before I try to address it, I will wait for other criticisms and see if I need to fully redo the relevant tables due to statistical errors, etc.
It's clearly not ready for publication, and remember the last time I saw that, I pointed it out many inconsistencies, notably the Add health. You should have waited until I finish with the add health and NLSY97.
I also said that I wanted to re-do your analysis for the NAAL 2002, but I don't find the variables for prose and math. We can discuss that in email.
1. PAPER :
For table 6, GSS, you must have precised the years, e.g., 1972 to 2010 or 1972 to 2012 ?. you must also precise which sampling weight you use, see below, the original configuration (COMPWT).
http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss12
For table 7, it needs to be made explicit that NLSF (public) data has not provided sampling weight.
In page 13, it should be "(see, Richwine, 2009, table 2.11)"
Concerning table 5, you should tell us how these numbers are computed because they are not the same it appears in Capps et al. (2012) table 1.
Page 15, "Assuming that there is a robust 2nd to third+ generation narrowing, some of this could be due to cultural and genetic assimilation." you should better type "generation cognitive gap narrowing". Same thing for this passage in page 7, "Alternatively, there might have been a genuine first to second generational cognitive narrowing in unbiased aptitude".
There is also a lot of missing references, such as Capps et al. (2012).
In the paper, table 1 is wide, you can probably rotate it. But the worse thing is that all pictures are blurred. You must do something with that. Copy pasting your pictures from your blog posts does not improve readability. The presentation is that of a complete "amateur" and if you want this journal to be taken very seriously by scientists in general, the presentation is very important. In my opinion, i don't necessarily care so much about presentation, but here, that's a peer-reviewed journal, so you should improve this.
The quoted passage under table 8 is in grey, not in black.
Also, you need to add a page number in the paper, next time. And also needed, since this journal wants you to share the data (that is not available for some of the data set you use), is a description and pictures of the statistical procedure you use, see e.g., here :
http://www.openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=37&pid=524#pid524
"If anything I should cut discussions, not add to them"
The text is useful, otherwise the article is boring. You should keep them.
2. DATA FILE :
The tables in the excel data file are also very hard to read. Each cell needs to be much wider. For instance, the column width of L is just 1.80. Just see how L351 is difficult to read. Furthermore, you should put the data tables in sheet 1, and the syntax in sheet 2.
I don't see what the cell W5 refers to.
In cell F11, I prefer you write the entire word instead of something like "Approx."
Cell A169, you have :
"Variables: Student race/ethnicity (collapsed) (U.S. only) (2007, 2011), Gen \ born in [country], Gen \ [stmo or fem guard] born in [country]
Years: 2011, 2007"
But I prefer one variable per rows. here you should have 4 or 5 rows, for example.
The table in analysis 6 "eat" the space for analysis 7 and make some of your numbers (apparently, the black scores) disappeared. As i said before, it needs to be corrected.
in analysis 9, you should avoid "semi-sentence" like "used 3rd gen White SD, did not pool". It's better to make a complete sentence, and begin with "I have" or "we have" etc.
In general, for the data file, you should avoid copy-pasting tables and picture from others' work, and type the numbers yourself.
in analysis 13/14, the question "Where you born in the US?" is odd and i believe it should have said "were".
In cell Q1308, you have typed "Composite SAT and ACT Scores by Rac/ Generation" and it must be corrected.
....
....
In general, I need to replicate all of the data in your file. That will take some time. (We can do the exchange in mail)
I also think everyone should name the attached data file according to the title of the paper, just to make sure there is no ambiguity. (by the same token, the title of your pdf "RaceGenUSforOpenPsych2" should be renamed)
By the way, speaking about the title of the paper, i would prefer "U.S. Ethnic/Race Differences in Ability by Generation". I'm not sure what "aptitude" refers to and I believe "ability" is a clearer word.
I also said that I wanted to re-do your analysis for the NAAL 2002, but I don't find the variables for prose and math. We can discuss that in email.
1. PAPER :
For table 6, GSS, you must have precised the years, e.g., 1972 to 2010 or 1972 to 2012 ?. you must also precise which sampling weight you use, see below, the original configuration (COMPWT).
http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss12
For table 7, it needs to be made explicit that NLSF (public) data has not provided sampling weight.
In page 13, it should be "(see, Richwine, 2009, table 2.11)"
Concerning table 5, you should tell us how these numbers are computed because they are not the same it appears in Capps et al. (2012) table 1.
Page 15, "Assuming that there is a robust 2nd to third+ generation narrowing, some of this could be due to cultural and genetic assimilation." you should better type "generation cognitive gap narrowing". Same thing for this passage in page 7, "Alternatively, there might have been a genuine first to second generational cognitive narrowing in unbiased aptitude".
There is also a lot of missing references, such as Capps et al. (2012).
In the paper, table 1 is wide, you can probably rotate it. But the worse thing is that all pictures are blurred. You must do something with that. Copy pasting your pictures from your blog posts does not improve readability. The presentation is that of a complete "amateur" and if you want this journal to be taken very seriously by scientists in general, the presentation is very important. In my opinion, i don't necessarily care so much about presentation, but here, that's a peer-reviewed journal, so you should improve this.
The quoted passage under table 8 is in grey, not in black.
Also, you need to add a page number in the paper, next time. And also needed, since this journal wants you to share the data (that is not available for some of the data set you use), is a description and pictures of the statistical procedure you use, see e.g., here :
http://www.openpsych.net/forum/showthread.php?tid=37&pid=524#pid524
"If anything I should cut discussions, not add to them"
The text is useful, otherwise the article is boring. You should keep them.
2. DATA FILE :
The tables in the excel data file are also very hard to read. Each cell needs to be much wider. For instance, the column width of L is just 1.80. Just see how L351 is difficult to read. Furthermore, you should put the data tables in sheet 1, and the syntax in sheet 2.
I don't see what the cell W5 refers to.
In cell F11, I prefer you write the entire word instead of something like "Approx."
Cell A169, you have :
"Variables: Student race/ethnicity (collapsed) (U.S. only) (2007, 2011), Gen \ born in [country], Gen \ [stmo or fem guard] born in [country]
Years: 2011, 2007"
But I prefer one variable per rows. here you should have 4 or 5 rows, for example.
The table in analysis 6 "eat" the space for analysis 7 and make some of your numbers (apparently, the black scores) disappeared. As i said before, it needs to be corrected.
in analysis 9, you should avoid "semi-sentence" like "used 3rd gen White SD, did not pool". It's better to make a complete sentence, and begin with "I have" or "we have" etc.
In general, for the data file, you should avoid copy-pasting tables and picture from others' work, and type the numbers yourself.
in analysis 13/14, the question "Where you born in the US?" is odd and i believe it should have said "were".
In cell Q1308, you have typed "Composite SAT and ACT Scores by Rac/ Generation" and it must be corrected.
....
....
In general, I need to replicate all of the data in your file. That will take some time. (We can do the exchange in mail)
I also think everyone should name the attached data file according to the title of the paper, just to make sure there is no ambiguity. (by the same token, the title of your pdf "RaceGenUSforOpenPsych2" should be renamed)
By the way, speaking about the title of the paper, i would prefer "U.S. Ethnic/Race Differences in Ability by Generation". I'm not sure what "aptitude" refers to and I believe "ability" is a clearer word.
It's clearly not ready for publication, and remember the last time I saw that, I pointed it out many inconsistencies, notably the Add health. You should have waited until I finish with the add health and NLSY97.
I fixed the problem with Add health. Check the code. I checked NLSY97. I didn't use it because for student US born there were a lot of "I don't know" probably meaning "Illegal, but I'm not going to say". Look at variable: R1201300, CV_CITIZENSHIP 1997. I'll send you my file. As for NAAL, I'm confident with the results. If I redo them, I will not use the AM software.
For table 6, GSS, you must have precised the years, e.g., 1972 to 2010 or 1972 to 2012 ?. you must also precise which sampling weight you use, see below, the original configuration (COMPWT).
http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss12
I originally had that but then removed it when Emil told me to redo the tables. I can put a copy of the analysis in my excel, though. As for the NLSF, I put the syntax at the bottom on my excel. The NLSF wasn't intended to be a nationally representative sample and I noted that it wasn't so I don't see why I should note that there were no sample weights -- that would only matter if it was implied that the sample was representative. Maybe you want me to exclude this sample instead. I was thinking of that myself. But I didn't want an odd number i.e., 17.
There is also a lot of missing references, such as Capps et al. (2012)."
I don't think that it's necessary to cite every last paper referenced somewhere in a paper. Many people don't do this. I could give you examples. What's the exact policy here? Emil?
In the paper, table 1 is wide, you can probably rotate it. But the worse thing is that all pictures are blurred. You must do something with that. Copy pasting your pictures from your blog posts does not improve readability. The presentation is that of a complete "amateur" and if you want this journal to be taken very seriously by scientists in general, the presentation is very important. In my opinion, i don't necessarily care so much about presentation, but here, that's a peer-reviewed journal, so you should improve this.]
As I noted to Emil, I will address those issues when I have confirmation about the data in the figures and their overall presentation. I appreciate that reviewers here might be annoyed that I purposely submitted a semi-finished paper, but I'm simply not going to redo the figures a million times according to every suggestion and I knew that there would be numerous objections when it came to the data. There are basic issues such as how to average the data, whether to compute some variance statistic, whether to try to weight the d-values e.g., by overall sample size. I wanted to wait to see if these were a concern first before I address Mickey Mouse (i.e., trivial) concerns.
In general, I need to replicate all of the data in your file. That will take some time. (We can do the exchange in mail)
I figured as much. I'm not in a hurry. I think Emil et al. are rushing these publications as it is. I'm fine with a couple of months, actually. Slow, slow hippo here. I just want to get the process started.
I didn't use it because for student US born there were a lot of "I don't know" probably meaning "Illegal, but I'm not going to say".
I don't know the slightest thing about the U.S. policies, but what's the relationship between the two ideas, here ?
I didn't use it because for student US born there were a lot of "I don't know" probably meaning "Illegal, but I'm not going to say".
I don't know the slightest thing about the U.S. policies, but what's the relationship between the two ideas, here ?
In the '90s we weren't letting everyone who popped up in the U.S. stay. So people were reluctant to admit if they were illegal. That is if (a) they were not US born and (b) if they (or their parents) did not do the paper work. So in surveys people would often say "I don't know" or refuse to answer. "I don't know" mostly equals "No". But you can't say for sure.
This is an excellent paper and should be published.
I don't think that it's necessary to cite every last paper referenced somewhere in a paper. Many people don't do this. I could give you examples. What's the exact policy here? Emil?
When I submitted my first paper to Mankind Quarterly a year ago or so, I had the same idea that one might just skip the full citations for some well-known papers. In my case I skipped the full reference for "Jensen, 1998" since everybody knows what that refers to.
Reviewers then told me I had to add everything. I think that's the standard policy for papers. I think that when you find papers where the reference is missing in the references section this is due to an error on the author's part, not an intended policy.
I prefer that all sources are cited in full in the reference section. However, I'm willing to take a vote among reviewers to decide the journal policy.
As I noted to Emil, I will address those issues when I have confirmation about the data in the figures and their overall presentation. I appreciate that reviewers here might be annoyed that I purposely submitted a semi-finished paper, but I'm simply not going to redo the figures a million times according to every suggestion and I knew that there would be numerous objections when it came to the data. There are basic issues such as how to average the data, whether to compute some variance statistic, whether to try to weight the d-values e.g., by overall sample size. I wanted to wait to see if these were a concern first before I address Mickey Mouse (i.e., trivial) concerns.
That's another policy question regarding how ready papers should be before submission. We can discuss that in the meta forum if anyone desires.
[quote='Emil' pid='686' dateline='1404405246']
Sorry but I didn't have time to review this paper. Concerning this question, I agree with you that sometimes it's not necessary to cite classical papers. For example, many journals want you to give full references for Plato or Kant but I think this is just silly. Since Jensen is to psychology as Plato is to philosophy (they're both classics), I would say references for Jensen or other classics are not compulsory.
I don't think that it's necessary to cite every last paper referenced somewhere in a paper. Many people don't do this. I could give you examples. What's the exact policy here? Emil?
Sorry but I didn't have time to review this paper. Concerning this question, I agree with you that sometimes it's not necessary to cite classical papers. For example, many journals want you to give full references for Plato or Kant but I think this is just silly. Since Jensen is to psychology as Plato is to philosophy (they're both classics), I would say references for Jensen or other classics are not compulsory.
[quote='Duxide' pid='688' dateline='1404421028']
I had tables such as shown in the picture attached which listed the reference at the bottom but for which a reference was not placed in the reference section. I have seen this a million times.
I don't think that it's necessary to cite every last paper referenced somewhere in a paper. Many people don't do this. I could give you examples. What's the exact policy here? Emil?
Sorry but I didn't have time to review this paper. Concerning this question, I agree with you that sometimes it's not necessary to cite classical papers. For example, many journals want you to give full references for Plato or Kant but I think this is just silly. Since Jensen is to psychology as Plato is to philosophy (they're both classics), I would say references for Jensen or other classics are not compulsory.
I had tables such as shown in the picture attached which listed the reference at the bottom but for which a reference was not placed in the reference section. I have seen this a million times.
[quote='Chuck' pid='693' dateline='1404423665']
I think that's fine.
I don't think that it's necessary to cite every last paper referenced somewhere in a paper. Many people don't do this. I could give you examples. What's the exact policy here? Emil?
Sorry but I didn't have time to review this paper. Concerning this question, I agree with you that sometimes it's not necessary to cite classical papers. For example, many journals want you to give full references for Plato or Kant but I think this is just silly. Since Jensen is to psychology as Plato is to philosophy (they're both classics), I would say references for Jensen or other classics are not compulsory.
I had tables such as shown in the picture attached which listed the reference at the bottom but for which a reference was not placed in the reference section. I have seen this a million times.
I think that's fine.
Meng Hu is currently helping me edit this, check the data, and write up the results, so I am adding him as a co-author. As he is doing an extensive amount of work on the project, he constitutes a biased reviewer regardless of whether he is added as a co-author. As such, his review opinion should probably be discounted (in terms of approval).
(a) We updated the data file, making corrections as needed. There were a number of small mistakes -- made during the computation of hundreds upon hundreds of d-values - but they didn't alter the substance of the results. (b) Meng Hu reorganized the data file to enhance comprehensibility. He is currently working on an appendix which explains the method. This will be added to the excel file or attached separately. (c ) I added a more detailed discussion of Asian American scores and presented several new subgroup analyses e.g., for Pacific Island Americans, etc. (d) Some edits were made and per Emil's request tables altered.
(a) We updated the data file, making corrections as needed. There were a number of small mistakes -- made during the computation of hundreds upon hundreds of d-values - but they didn't alter the substance of the results. (b) Meng Hu reorganized the data file to enhance comprehensibility. He is currently working on an appendix which explains the method. This will be added to the excel file or attached separately. (c ) I added a more detailed discussion of Asian American scores and presented several new subgroup analyses e.g., for Pacific Island Americans, etc. (d) Some edits were made and per Emil's request tables altered.
Meng Hu is currently helping me edit this, check the data, and write up the results, so I am adding him as a co-author.
I don't think you should. I have tried to make the table more presentable, and see where the problems are (if any). As I said, it's due to the formulas, sometimes (i.e., rarely) using the wrong cell. I have not "contributed" to this paper. My only task was to make clear that the numbers and formulas are correct, and they are. However, I admit I'm doing too much in reviewing every minor, last details, and probably much more than any other will do.
If you think, despite of that, my opinion can be biased due to my too thorough reviews, then, you should, as i suggested, ask the opinion of some others who have done some works on this field (te Nijenhuis, Woodley, Meisenberg, etc.).
(P.S., I have detected something in the last edit in your excel data file; for the NAEP, grade4 2011 and 2013 have been reversed).
P.S., if you want to apply the $ in your formulas, that should be
=(G$917-G922)/(B$932)
but not ...
=($G917-G922)/($B932)
OK,
I corrected the Excel File.
I corrected the tables.
The latest edition is attached.
(We haven't decided on MH's status; whatever the case, we need additional reviewers anyways.)
I corrected the Excel File.
I corrected the tables.
The latest edition is attached.
(We haven't decided on MH's status; whatever the case, we need additional reviewers anyways.)
I made the tables more readable.
For tables 2, 4 and 17, 18, I prefer (and highly recommend) not to present the tables that are merely copy pasting from screenshot/excel spreadsheet. And where are tables 3, 11, 15 ? And what about the big space just above table 4 ? The abstract is annoying. You write "NH" without precising what it is (non-hispanic). You also forget an * for SAT/ACT in the row belonging to NLSF in table 1.
For tables 2, 4 and 17, 18, I prefer (and highly recommend) not to present the tables that are merely copy pasting from screenshot/excel spreadsheet.
Why? When I do this all of my numbers are aligned; when I use your method they aren't. Most tables in a typical published paper will be some sort of added in table.
The paper is fine, and I don't really have any comments on the technical details, but there are some mainly semantic, stylistic, or orthographic issues that should be dealt with (the page numbers refer to the latest pdf version):
1) The meaning of the term "exploratory meta-analysis" is a bit obscure. Anello & Fliess (1995) differentiated between analytic and exploratory meta-analysis in medicine in this way:
<i>If randomized clinical trials are limited to improving an estimate of effect or testing a hypothesis in a relatively homogeneous set of effect sizes, the clinical trial will tend to be less prone to bias than a comparable set of epidemiologic studies. In this context, the issue of combinability may dominate the meta-analysis. We refer to this type of meta-analysis as an “analytic” meta-analysis. On the other hand when the goal is to resolve controversy, or pose and answer new questions the main concern of the meta-analysis is to explain the variation in the effect sizes. We refer to this application of a meta-analysis as an “exploratory” meta-analysis. In this second type of meta-analysis the characteristics of the different studies become the focus of the analysis.</i>
So this suggests that exploratory meta-analysis focuses on finding moderator variables. On the other hand, sometimes the meaning of "exploratory meta-analysis" seems to be that the author conducts original analyses of many data sets and combines their results. In any case, I don't think the word 'exploratory' carries the implication that the literature search was non-systematic. I would say that a meta-analysis is systematic when it involves an exhaustive literature review based on predefined criteria, but if the literature review is incomplete, it doesn't mean that the meta-analysis is exploratory.
So, perhaps the paper could be called a non-systematic meta-analysis, or it could be simple called a (n exploratory) meta-analysis, with an explanation in the text that the literature search was non-exhaustive.
2) p. 1: "John Ogbu’s involuntary minority hypothesis attributes low African American performance to opposition differences arising from being an involuntary diasporia"
Should be "oppositionAL differences". Is 'diasporia' a word? Perhaps "members of an involuntary diaspora"?
3) p. 2: The online tools used could be specified. For example, "Analyzed with NAEP Data Explorer". 'Publicly' is preferable to 'publically'.
4) p. 3: "In this instances"
instance
5) p. 3: "we unweight averaged the survey d-values"
Do you mean "we averaged the unweighted survey d-values"? The whole paragraph is unclear.
6) p. 3.: "For simplicity sake"
simplicity's
7) p. 3: "Generally not using pooled standard deviations had little effect as the White 3rd+ generation sample size overwhelmed the comparison group sample sizes."
Not really relevant here, but I think you generally shouldn't use weights when pooling SDs.
8) p. 4: There's no explanation of how you decided whether a test was a good indicator of g.
9) p. 6: In the results section, you should add a clarification of what the signs of the effect sizes mean, that is, that the numbers are obtained by subtracting non-white scores from white scores.
10) p. 9: "In the case of Blacks, Whites, and Asians there was a high degree of cross generational similarity in aptitude."
It would be clearer to say "cross generational stability".
11) p. 10: "Black migrants to the U.S. and to Europe both from Africa and from the West Indies are, however, very selective with respect to human capital"
Individuals aren't selective but selected, so you should write "Black migration ... is ... very selective" or something like that.
12) p. 16: "dyselected"
dysselected, perhaps 'negatively selected' would be better?
13) Vanhanen's name is misspelled Vanhannen throughout.
14) p. 17: "measure invariant"
measureMENT invariant
15) p. 17: "measure invariance (MI) has been found to hold between non-Hispanic Whites and (presumably mostly second+ generation) Hispanics (Dalliard, 2013)"
Again, measureMENT invariance, and instead of my post, you should reference...
Trundt, K. M. (2013). Construct Bias in the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II): A comparison among African American, Asian, Hispanic, and White Ethnic Groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
1) The meaning of the term "exploratory meta-analysis" is a bit obscure. Anello & Fliess (1995) differentiated between analytic and exploratory meta-analysis in medicine in this way:
<i>If randomized clinical trials are limited to improving an estimate of effect or testing a hypothesis in a relatively homogeneous set of effect sizes, the clinical trial will tend to be less prone to bias than a comparable set of epidemiologic studies. In this context, the issue of combinability may dominate the meta-analysis. We refer to this type of meta-analysis as an “analytic” meta-analysis. On the other hand when the goal is to resolve controversy, or pose and answer new questions the main concern of the meta-analysis is to explain the variation in the effect sizes. We refer to this application of a meta-analysis as an “exploratory” meta-analysis. In this second type of meta-analysis the characteristics of the different studies become the focus of the analysis.</i>
So this suggests that exploratory meta-analysis focuses on finding moderator variables. On the other hand, sometimes the meaning of "exploratory meta-analysis" seems to be that the author conducts original analyses of many data sets and combines their results. In any case, I don't think the word 'exploratory' carries the implication that the literature search was non-systematic. I would say that a meta-analysis is systematic when it involves an exhaustive literature review based on predefined criteria, but if the literature review is incomplete, it doesn't mean that the meta-analysis is exploratory.
So, perhaps the paper could be called a non-systematic meta-analysis, or it could be simple called a (n exploratory) meta-analysis, with an explanation in the text that the literature search was non-exhaustive.
2) p. 1: "John Ogbu’s involuntary minority hypothesis attributes low African American performance to opposition differences arising from being an involuntary diasporia"
Should be "oppositionAL differences". Is 'diasporia' a word? Perhaps "members of an involuntary diaspora"?
3) p. 2: The online tools used could be specified. For example, "Analyzed with NAEP Data Explorer". 'Publicly' is preferable to 'publically'.
4) p. 3: "In this instances"
instance
5) p. 3: "we unweight averaged the survey d-values"
Do you mean "we averaged the unweighted survey d-values"? The whole paragraph is unclear.
6) p. 3.: "For simplicity sake"
simplicity's
7) p. 3: "Generally not using pooled standard deviations had little effect as the White 3rd+ generation sample size overwhelmed the comparison group sample sizes."
Not really relevant here, but I think you generally shouldn't use weights when pooling SDs.
8) p. 4: There's no explanation of how you decided whether a test was a good indicator of g.
9) p. 6: In the results section, you should add a clarification of what the signs of the effect sizes mean, that is, that the numbers are obtained by subtracting non-white scores from white scores.
10) p. 9: "In the case of Blacks, Whites, and Asians there was a high degree of cross generational similarity in aptitude."
It would be clearer to say "cross generational stability".
11) p. 10: "Black migrants to the U.S. and to Europe both from Africa and from the West Indies are, however, very selective with respect to human capital"
Individuals aren't selective but selected, so you should write "Black migration ... is ... very selective" or something like that.
12) p. 16: "dyselected"
dysselected, perhaps 'negatively selected' would be better?
13) Vanhanen's name is misspelled Vanhannen throughout.
14) p. 17: "measure invariant"
measureMENT invariant
15) p. 17: "measure invariance (MI) has been found to hold between non-Hispanic Whites and (presumably mostly second+ generation) Hispanics (Dalliard, 2013)"
Again, measureMENT invariance, and instead of my post, you should reference...
Trundt, K. M. (2013). Construct Bias in the Differential Ability Scales, Second Edition (DAS-II): A comparison among African American, Asian, Hispanic, and White Ethnic Groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin, TX.
© Copyright 2024 OpenPsych - All Rights Reserved