White Jacquelyn W, Smith Paige Hall, Koss Mary P, Figueredo A J
U North Carolina.
Psychol Bull. 2000 Sep;126(5):690-696. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.5.690.
This commentary on J. Archer (2000) identifies limitations at the level of the primary data, the formal meta-analysis, and the interpretations of the results. Highlighted are concerns with the conceptual dichotomy that is the foundation of the analysis, how aggression was conceptualized and defined, and the methodological problems in the studies included in the database that were not neutralized by the meta-analysis. These include inadequate measurement of contextual factors and injury outcomes, scaling issues, and sampling concerns. The authors question the degree to which the field is advanced by this meta-analysis when the results are placed in the context of these limitations. Following American Association for the Advancement of Science directives (I. Lerch, 1999), the authors believe that inadequate attention was paid to the policy implications of the conclusions raising the potential to undermine societal efforts to eradicate violence against women.
这篇对J. 阿彻(2000年)的评论指出了原始数据、形式上的元分析以及结果解读层面的局限性。突出的问题包括作为分析基础的概念二分法、攻击行为的概念化与定义方式,以及数据库中所纳入研究存在的方法学问题,而这些问题并未因元分析而得到化解。这些问题包括情境因素和伤害结果的测量不充分、量表问题以及抽样方面的担忧。当把结果置于这些局限性背景下考量时,作者们质疑该元分析在多大程度上推动了该领域的发展。遵循美国科学促进会的指令(I. 勒奇,1999年),作者们认为对结论的政策影响关注不足,这有可能破坏社会根除暴力侵害妇女行为的努力。