Characterizing the File Drawer: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis of Parent-Interventions Around the World
NBER Working Papers · 2026 · [{"name": "Peter Bergman", "affiliation": []}, {"name": "Nat Chowanajin", "affiliation": []}]
中文摘要
我们对20多个国家的82项随机对照试验进行元分析，以估计通过短信、电话和应用程序提供的低成本、远程家长参与干预措施的效应。我们估计了一个联合似然函数，该函数同时纳入已撰写研究，以及通过试验注册库、资助方记录、研究实验室、证据信息交换所等来源识别出的未撰写研究。通过同时记录未撰写研究的样本量，该模型估计了标准误的分布，识别了以统计显著性为条件的撰写概率，并通过估计已撰写与未撰写研究的效应分布来刻画“文件抽屉”问题。偏误校正后的效应为：考试成绩0.05个标准差，课程成绩0.07个标准差，出勤率0.05个标准差，入学率0.03个标准差。在识别最为充分的领域——考试成绩——中，统计不显著的结果仍以较高比例被撰写成文。我们还发现，规模较大的研究倾向于估计出较小的潜在效应，这可能表明真实效应与研究精度相关，从而违反了元分析中的一个常见假设。在样本量较小的领域，我们的方法通过锚定绝对撰写率，帮助识别选择概率。最后，我们估计了追加随机对照试验对采纳决策的信息价值。任何单项研究的估计结果都不太可能劝阻采纳，因为家长参与干预措施具有较高的公共资金边际价值。相反，未来研究只有在能够解释不同情境下的异质性时才最具价值。
Abstract
We conduct a meta-analysis of 82 randomized controlled trials across more than 20 countries to estimate the effects of low-cost, remote parental engagement interventions delivered through text messages, phone calls, and apps. We estimate a joint likelihood function that incorporates both written studies and unwritten studies identified through trial registries, funder records, research labs, evidence clearinghouses, and other sources. By also recording sample sizes for unwritten studies, the model estimates the distribution of standard errors, identifies write-up probabilities conditional on significance, and characterizes the file drawer by estimating effect distributions for written and unwritten studies. Bias-corrected effects are 0.05 SD for test scores, 0.07 SD for grades, 0.05 SD for attendance, and 0.03 SD for enrollment. In the best-identified domain, test scores, statistically insignificant results are still written up at high rates. We also find that larger studies tend to estimate smaller latent effects, which could indicate that true effects are correlated with study precision, violating a common meta-analysis assumption. In smaller-sample domains, our approach helps identify selection probabilities by anchoring the absolute write-up rates. Finally, we estimate the value of additional RCTs to inform adoption decisions. Any single study estimate is unlikely to dissuade adoption because parent interventions have high marginal value of public funds. Instead, future research is most valuable when it can explain heterogeneity across settings.