Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes

Although dependence in effect sizes is ubiquitous, commonly used meta-analytic methods assume independent effect sizes. We describe and illustrate three-level extensions of a mixed effects meta-analytic model that accounts for various sources of dependence within and across studies, because multilev...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Behavior research methods Vol. 45; no. 2; pp. 576 - 594
Main Authors: Van den Noortgate, Wim, López-López, José Antonio, Marín-Martínez, Fulgencio, Sánchez-Meca, Julio
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: New York Springer-Verlag 01.06.2013
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects:
Behavioral Science and Psychology
Bias
Children & youth
Cognitive Psychology
Errors
Imputing
Internet
Meta-analysis
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Models, Psychological
Models, Statistical
Models, Theoretical
Multivariate Analysis
Psychological tests
Psychology
Sampling
Sampling Studies
Simulation
Studies
Systematic review
Multiple outcomes
Multilevel
Dependence
Meta-analysis
ISSN:1554-3528, 1554-351X, 1554-3528
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Although dependence in effect sizes is ubiquitous, commonly used meta-analytic methods assume independent effect sizes. We describe and illustrate three-level extensions of a mixed effects meta-analytic model that accounts for various sources of dependence within and across studies, because multilevel extensions of meta-analytic models still are not well known. We also present a three-level model for the common case where, within studies, multiple effect sizes are calculated using the same sample. Whereas this approach is relatively simple and does not require imputing values for the unknown sampling covariances, it has hardly been used, and its performance has not been empirically investigated. Therefore, we set up a simulation study, showing that also in this situation, a three-level approach yields valid results: Estimates of the treatment effects and the corresponding standard errors are unbiased.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Undefined-1
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Feature-1
ISSN:1554-3528
1554-351X
1554-3528
DOI:10.3758/s13428-012-0261-6