ArticlePersonality & social psychology bulletin2026
A Taxonomy of Data Synthesis.
Article in Personality & social psychology bulletin, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
As efforts to improve the credibility of psychological and other social sciences continue, researchers aim to conduct multi-study or multi-sample research and synthesize findings using different parameterizations of individual participant meta-analysis. No overarching organizational framework exists, and only a few simulation-based or empirical examples comparing these parameterizations. This article has two goals. First, we provide an overview of six common parameterizations of individual participant meta-analysis, organized into a taxonomy based on different features (e.g., sample-specific parameters, meta-analytic parameters, and number of models). Second, using empirical data from 26,205 participants across 11 longitudinal studies, we provide comparisons of each parameterization testing prospective associations between the personality traits and crystallized abilities. We found that openness was a robust predictor of crystallized abilities across samples. Across methods, we observed consistency in model estimates, with some exceptions. We conclude with recommendations for choosing an approach given a team's goals, questions, data availability, and model features.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.