Reviewbronze2021

Improving the reporting quality of reliability generalization meta‐analyses: The REGEMA checklist

Julio Sánchez‐Meca · Fulgencio Marín‐Martínez · José A López-López · Rosa María Núñez Núñez · María Rubio‐Aparicio · Juan José López García +4 more

127 citations0/0 files storedResearch Synthesis Methods

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Psychology Research and Bibliometrics

Abstract

Reliability generalization (RG) is a meta-analytic approach that aims to characterize how reliability estimates from the same test vary across different applications of the instrument. With this purpose RG meta-analyses typically focus on a particular test and intend to obtain an overall reliability of test scores and to investigate how the composition and variability of the samples affect reliability. Although several guidelines have been proposed in the meta-analytic literature to help authors improve the reporting quality of meta-analyses, none of them were devised for RG meta-analyses. The purpose of this investigation was to develop REGEMA (REliability GEneralization Meta-Analysis), a 30-item checklist (plus a flow chart) adapted to the specific issues that the reporting of an RG meta-analysis must take into account. Based on previous checklists and guidelines proposed in the meta-analytic arena, a first version was elaborated by applying the nominal group methodology. The resulting instrument was submitted to a list of independent meta-analysis experts and, after discussion, the final version of the REGEMA checklist was reached. In a pilot study, four pairs of coders applied REGEMA to a random sample of 40 RG meta-analyses in Psychology, and results showed satisfactory inter-coder reliability. REGEMA can be used by: (a) meta-analysts conducting or reporting an RG meta-analysis and aiming to improve its reporting quality; (b) consumers of RG meta-analyses who want to make informed critical appraisals of their reporting quality, and (c) reviewers and editors of journals who are considering submissions where an RG meta-analysis was reported for potential publication.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 127 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement 1977The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data 2000Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting 2010Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 2009Introduction to Meta‐Analysis 2017AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both 2021Introduction to Meta‐Analysis

Cited by

2022How (Not) to Measure Loneliness: A Review of the Eight Most Commonly Used Scales 2023Epworth sleepiness scale: A meta-analytic study on the internal consistency 2025The Cronbach’s Alpha of Domain-Specific Knowledge Tests Before and After Learning: A Meta-Analysis of Published Studies 2023Insomnia Severity Index: A reliability generalisation meta‐analysis 2021A meta-review of transparency and reproducibility-related reporting practices in published meta-analyses on clinical psychological interventions (2000–2020)

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.