This article extends both the logic and the statistical procedures used in a recent analysis of Hyde's data on gender differences in cognitive abilities by Rosenthal and Rubin. The logic of a "model fitting" approach to meta-analysis is described. Relevant statistical procedures and goodness-of-fit tests are illustrated. (Author/BS)

Feingold's reply illustrates that his steps in characterizing tail effect sizes are not the calculations the authors had imagined. Attempting to reproduce Feingold's calculations, the authors still often find themselves in disagreement with interpretations Feingold has placed in his table. (SLD)

Analyzes effect sizes in tails of distribution of scores in Feingold's study of joint effects of gender differences in mean and variability on 28 cognitive-ability scales. Effect sizes are smaller than Feingold assumed. Evaluates joint effect of gender differences by number of males and females in extreme score ranges. (SLD)