NARRATIVE VERSUS METAANALYTIC REVIEWS - A REJOINDER TO GRAHAMS COMMENT

We examine Graham's (1995) concerns about meta-analysis regarding (a) the use of poor-quality studies and (b) an overemphasis on quantitativ e comparisons of substantively disparate literatures. First, many meta -analysts eschew making questionable global judgments of quality so as to exclude studies on an a priori basis. Instead they demonstrate the ir concern for research quality by including methods variables in a se arch for influences on study outcomes. Further our meta-analysis (Coop er & Dorr, 1995) demonstrated the independence of decisions about (a) what studies to include in a review and (b) whether to use quantitativ e synthesis techniques by using the same evidential base Graham used f or her narrative review. Second, we agree with Graham that substantive ly disparate literatures ought not be compared. However, we argue that literatures that might be defined as disparate for one purpose could be comparable for another Regardless, her concern is irrelevant to our comparison of the two reviewing methods.