When averaging goes wrong: The case for mixture model estimation in psychological science.

Recent failed attempts to replicate numerous findings in psychology have raised concerns about methodological practices in the behavioral sciences. More caution appears to be required when evaluating single studies, while systematic replications and meta-analyses are being encouraged. Here, we provide an additional element to this ongoing discussion, by proposing that typical assumptions of meta-analyses be substantiated. Specifically, we argue that when effects come from more than one underlying distributions, meta-analytic averages extracted from a series of studies can be deceptive, with potentially detrimental consequences. The underlying distribution properties, we propose, should be modeled, based on the variability in a given population of effect sizes. We describe how to test for the plurality of distribution modes adequately, how to use the resulting probabilistic assessments to refine evaluations of a body of evidence, and discuss why current models are insufficient in addressing these concerns. We also consider the advantages and limitations of this method, and demonstrate how systematic testing could lead to stronger inferences. Additional material with details regarding all the examples, algorithm, and code is provided online to facilitate replication and to allow broader use across the field of psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).