Of the 29 articles included in the meta-analysis, three presented results for more than one independent sample (Holdstock et al., 2000; O’Malley and Maisto, 1985; Savoie et al., 1988). We treated individual samples as the basic unit of our analyses, yielding our total k of 32 samples. When unique samples endorsed multiple measures of subjective alcohol response, we computed a mean effect across all measures. When samples were assessed multiple times—either during a single trial or across multiple trials—we again computed the mean effect across assessments. To compute the sample-size-adjusted mean effect estimate, we used a random-effects model, which allows for random between-sample variance beyond sampling variance (Borenstein et al., 2009). This approach assumes that there is no single true population effect and is recommended for use in reviews that do not summarize a set of virtually identical studies (i.e., where one would expect variability beyond sampling error; Schmidt, 2010).
