Whether gamification is an organized structure that contributes to student achievement, a simple pontification process or total nonsense is a matter of debate. In such, this study was conducted to provide a scientific answer while exhibiting the gamification effect on student achievement with the meta-analysis method, which is based on experimental research that investigates the effect of gamification on student achievement between 2010 and 2016. As a result of the completed meta-analysis, a common effect size value that was estimated by compiling experimental studies was found to be 0.557. This value shows that gamification has a moderately positive (Cohen, 1988 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Edition). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] ) effect on student achievement. It is exhibited that there is no publication bias regarding determining the effect’s validity. Calculated 0.557 Hedges’ g value’s omega square equivalent is .072. This value shows that gamification has added 7.2% positive value to academic achievement according to 45 experimental results involving 3,487 students from different countries.

The purpose of this study is to obtain a more coherent picture of the relationship between creativity and schizotypy. A multilevel approach was used to ensure the statistical independence of multiple effect sizes from a single study. The mean effect size was r = .07 (SD = .20) based on the analyses from 45 articles yielding 268 effect sizes. The analyses, including five moderators (i.e., the type of schizotypy, measure of schizotypy, measure of creativity, content of creativity test, and index of creativity measure) within a three-level model, indicated that the type of schizotypy was the only significant predictor. Positive-Impulsive and Unspecified schizotypy each had positive relationships with creativity (r = .14, 95% CI = .12 and .17), whereas Negative-Disorganized schizotypy was negatively related (r = −.09, 95% CI = −.12, −.06). None of the creativity-related moderators explained the variation. Our findings revealed that the link between creativity and schizotypy is not uniform and that positive symptoms represent the intersection of creativity and schizotypy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved)

Meta-analysis has started to take place among the most used methodologies in psychological research. Such a technique allows researchers to combine the data sets obtained from several individual studies on the same topic and thus is particularly useful for finding solutions to controversial issues that cannot be solved with individual studies. This paper presents a detailed tutorial of the IBM SPSS software, which enables one to implement the statistical analyses for meta-analysis. Examples are also provided to highlight the main analyses conducted in the meta-analysis. The tutorial ends by discussing the differences between IBM SPSS capabilities and those of other software packages.

The purpose of this study was to thoroughly examine the performance of three information-based fit indices—Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and sample-size-adjusted BIC (SABIC)—using the log-linear cognitive diagnosis model and a set of well-known item response theory (IRT) models. Two simulation studies were conducted to examine the extent to which relative fit indices can identify the generating model under a variety of data conditions and model misspecifications. Generally, indices performed better when item quality was stronger. When the IRT was the generating model, all three indices correctly selected the IRT model for all replications. When the true model was a diagnostic classification model, for all three fit indices, the multidimensional IRT model was incorrectly selected as frequently as 70% of the replications. The results of this study identify situations for researchers where commonly used—and typically well-performing—fit indices may not be appropriate to compare models for selection.

Despite the growing scholarly interest in the effects of principal leadership on student achievement, empirical evidence concerning how principal qualifications might be related to student learning outcomes has been limited. This study investigates the relationship between different principal qualifications (prior experience in teaching, principalship and other school management roles, formal education, principal training, and professional development) and student achievement by analyzing cross-national teaching and learning international survey and program on international student assessment data from seven countries. The results showed that experience in principalship and other school management positions, principal training, and participation in networking activities and teaching/pedagogy-focused seminars had small but statistically significant associations with student achievement, though the results were not consistent across different subjects. Level of education and years of teaching experience did not, however, predict student achievement. Implications of the findings are offered for policy and further research.