MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947762722 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0216588

Meta-analyses of positive psychology interventions: The effects are much smaller than previously reported

2019· review· en· W2947762722 on OpenAlexaff
Carmela A. White, Bob Uttl, Mark D. Holder

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Canadian institutionsMount Royal UniversityUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusKelowna General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisSample size determinationPsychological interventionReplicatePublication biasPsychologyClinical psychologyMedicineStatisticsPsychiatryInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For at least four decades, researchers have studied the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase well-being. These interventions have become known as positive psychology interventions (PPIs). Two highly cited meta-analyses examined the effectiveness of PPIs on well-being and depression: Sin and Lyubomirsky (2009) and Bolier et al. (2013). Sin and Lyubomirsky reported larger effects of PPIs on well-being (r = .29) and depression (r = .31) than Bolier et al. reported for subjective well-being (r = .17), psychological well-being (r = .10), and depression (r = .11). A detailed examination of the two meta-analyses reveals that the authors employed different approaches, used different inclusion and exclusion criteria, analyzed different sets of studies, described their methods with insufficient detail to compare them clearly, and did not report or properly account for significant small sample size bias. The first objective of the current study was to reanalyze the studies selected in each of the published meta-analyses, while taking into account small sample size bias. The second objective was to replicate each meta-analysis by extracting relevant effect sizes directly from the primary studies included in the meta-analyses. The present study revealed three key findings: (1) many of the primary studies used a small sample size; (2) small sample size bias was pronounced in many of the analyses; and (3) when small sample size bias was taken into account, the effect of PPIs on well-being were small but significant (approximately r = .10), whereas the effect of PPIs on depression were variable, dependent on outliers, and generally not statistically significant. Future PPI research needs to focus on increasing sample sizes. A future meta-analyses of this research needs to assess cumulative effects from a comprehensive collection of primary studies while being mindful of issues such as small sample size bias.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.100
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.213
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1000.213
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.055
Bibliometrics0.0110.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.642
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.141 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
DomainEvaluation
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations200
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionFrench-language works237,207