Skip to main content
. 2019 Sep 11;8(3):351–371. doi: 10.1556/2006.8.2019.44

Table 3.

Results of the weighted ANOVAs for the influence of methodological quality items on the effect sizes

Quality item k r+ 95% CI ANOVA results
rl ru
1. Probabilistic sampling QB(1) = 0.988, p = .320
 Yes 1 .280 .127 .420 R2 = .00
 No 35 .359 .299 .415 QW(34) = 202.124, p < .001
2. Adequate target population QB(1) = 1.118, p = .290
 Yes 24 .380 .310 .446 R2 = .01
 No 12 .316 .215 .411 QW(34) = 191.814, p < .001
4. Reliability/validity MD measurement tool QB(1) = 6.928, p = .008
 Yes 24 .403 .331 .470 R2 = .13
 No 12 .255 .167 .339 QW(34) = 192.883, p < .001
5. Reliability/validity ED measurement tool QB(1) = 26.172, p < .001
 Yes 24 .416 .349 .479 R2 = .31
 No 12 .196 .147 .244 QW(34) = 159.323, p < .001
6. Absence of dichotomous DM and ED QB(1) = 6.412, p = .011
 Yes 30 .376 .314 .434 R2 = .06
 No 6 .219 .109 .324 QW(34) = 186.515, p < .001
8. Statistical test appropriate QB(1) = 0.058, p = .810
 Yes 21 .360 .280 .435 R2 = .00
 No 15 .346 .265 .423 QW(34) = 202.325, p < .001
9. Private financial support QB(1) = 0.138, p = .711
 Yes 4 .373 .288 .452 R2 = .00
 No 32 .354 .290 .414 QW(34) = 201.692, p < .001
10. Statistical power QB(1) = 0.426, p = .514
 Yes 2 .251 −.101 .548 R2 = .00
 No 34 .361 .302 .418 QW(34) = 202.397, p < .001

Note. Results for item 3 (dropouts were similar in socio-demographic characteristics to those of the final sample) and item 7 (absence of reporting bias) were not analyzed because all studies scored 0 and 1, respectively. k: number of studies; r+: mean effect size; rl and ru: 95% lower and upper confidence limits around r+; QB: between-categories Q statistic; QW: within-categories Q statistic; R2: proportion of variance accounted for by the moderator variable; ANOVA: analysis of variance; ED: eating disorder; MD: muscle dysmorphia.