Table 1.
Overall Meta-Analysis and Criterion Type
| Sample Weighted |
Variance due to Sampling Error (%) |
95% CI | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| k | N | Md | SD | L | U | χ 2 | Nfs | ||
| Ethics Instruction Effectiveness | |||||||||
| Overall Meta-Analysis | 26 | 3041 | .42 | .27 | 33 | –.10 | .95 | 78.41 | 29 |
| General Criterion Type | |||||||||
| Moral Development | 17 | 2229 | .36 | .26 | 31 | –.16 | .88 | 55.20 | 14 |
| Ethical Analysisa | 9 | 812 | .61 | .16 | 65 | –.29 | .93 | 13.97 | 18 |
| Specific Criterion Measures | |||||||||
| MJS | 4 | 106 | −.14 | .27 | 67 | −.67 | .38 | 5.74 | -- |
| DIT | 13 | 2123 | .38 | .24 | 31 | −.09 | .85 | 42.52 | 12 |
| Ethical Sensitivityb | 6 | 701 | .58 | .20 | 48 | .19 | .97 | 12.44 | 11 |
| Ethical Decision-Makingc | 3 | 111 | .77 | .00 | 100 | .77 | .77 | .80 | 9 |
| Reliability Corrected | |||||||||
| No | 3 | 346 | .37 | .00 | 100 | .37 | .37 | .68 | 3 |
| Yes | 23 | 2695 | .43 | .29 | 30 | –.14 | 1.00 | 77.43 | 26 |
Note.
a
Ethical decision-making and ethical sensitivity combined
b
all ethical sensitivity measures combined due to limited sample size
c
all ethical decision-making measures combined due to limited sample size
k = number of effect sizes; N = Total sample; M d = Sample weighted mean effect size (d) corrected for measurement error; SD = Standard deviation of mean effect size; CI = Confidence interval; L = Lower; U = Upper; Nfs = Orwin’s (1983) Fail safe N (number of null effects to reduce M d below .20); -- = effect size already below .20.