{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01928374655647383, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0036730945821854912, 'mean_word_length': 5.646341463414634, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Problems and Promises of Meta-Analysis in Special Education

The paper discusses problems resulting from the substitution of meta-analysis for qualitative reviewing of special education research, employing Cooper's (1982) framework for assessing integrative research reviews and using illustrations from research on class placement and mainstreaming. The pressure to maximize the number of observations in a meta-analysis may lead to the inclusion of inappropriate subject, treatment, and measurement categories. Meta-analysts often fail to meet the criteria for the inferential tests they apply. They also tend to underplay methodological problems common to a body of research. Meta-analysts could make more useful contributions if they were more thoughtful about both the methodology and substance of special education rather than tending toward blind empiricism. The greatest promise of meta-analysis is to encourage numerous small-scale studies which can then be quantitatively integrated. The development of meta-analytic techniques for qualitative research is another promising area.