Overview of Meta-Analysis, Part 5c (of 7): Primary Meta-Analyses (cont.)
Posted: May 13, 2012 | Author: A. R. Hafdahl | Filed under: Overview of Meta-Analysis | Tags: Bayesian analysis, between-studies variance component, dependence, fixed effect, heterogeneity, interval estimation, meta-analysis, meta-regression, model comparison, moderator, multivariate effect size, random effect, significance testing, standardized mean difference | 1 CommentThis is the last of three posts in Part 5 of my overview of meta-analysis. In Part 5a I described six conventional meta-analytic models for effect-size (ES) estimates, and in Part 5b I described estimation and inference for two of those models without covariates. In this post I’ll extend the methods of Part 5b to two models with covariates and comment on extensions and other variants of these models and procedures, to hint at the wide variety of situations that arise in meta-analysis. In Parts 6 and 7 of the overview, I’ll address follow-up procedures and ways to report results, respectively.
Read the rest of this entry »
Overview of Meta-Analysis, Part 5b (of 7): Primary Meta-Analyses (cont.)
Posted: April 30, 2012 | Author: A. R. Hafdahl | Filed under: Overview of Meta-Analysis | Tags: between-studies variance component, conditional variance, fixed effect, heterogeneity, interval estimation, math notation, meta-analysis, meta-regression, random effect, significance testing, standardized mean difference | 2 CommentsThis is the second of three posts in Part 5 of my overview of meta-analysis. In Part 5a I described six conventional models for meta-analysis, each of which combines within-study and between-studies models. In this second post I first comment on nested models then describe estimation and inference for two models without covariates—procedures for fitting these models to effect-size (ES) estimates and quantifying uncertainty about their focal (hyper)parameters. In the third post, Part 5c, I’ll do the same for two models with covariates and also comment on extensions and variants of these models and procedures.
Read the rest of this entry »
Sneak Preview: Degraded Effect Sizes and Tricky Conditional Variances
Posted: April 2, 2012 | Author: A. R. Hafdahl | Filed under: Sneak Preview | Tags: Bayesian analysis, conditional variance, correlation, effect size, meta-analysis, missing data, resampling, significance testing, standardized mean difference, vote counting | Leave a commentMy post on data exploration more than half completed my seven-part overview of meta-analysis. As a diversion while I write Part 5, let’s consider two of several methodological issues I plan to discuss in this blog: degraded effect sizes (ESs) and tricky conditional variances (CVs). My main aim here is to pique your interest in future posts by offering a glimpse at ways to manage selected challenges that routine meta-analytic techniques don’t address. These “teaser” descriptions will be quite superficial. I plan to elaborate on each of these challenges—as well as many others—after laying a foundation in my seven-part overview.
Read the rest of this entry »
Overview of Meta-Analysis, Part 4 (of 7): Data Exploration
Posted: March 28, 2012 | Author: A. R. Hafdahl | Filed under: Overview of Meta-Analysis | Tags: coding, data management, effect size, meta-analysis, missing data, moderator, outlier, reporting guidance, sample size, significance testing | 1 CommentThis seven-part overview’s first three parts focused on collecting data used in meta-analyses: estimates of effect size (ES), sample sizes or conditional variances (CVs) to quantify ES sampling error or (im)precision, and ES features. The overview’s subsequent four parts address analyzing these data and presenting results. In this fourth part I begin by describing preliminary analyses that can help identify errors and issues to attend to in primary analyses. (Part 1 of this overview lists the topics for all seven parts.)
Read the rest of this entry »
Meta-Analysis Sandwich 