Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Comparison of Fixed-Effects and Mixed (Random-Effects) Models for Meta-Analysis Tests of Moderator Variable Effects

A Comparison of Fixed-Effects and Mixed (Random-Effects) Models for Meta-Analysis Tests of... The growing popularity of meta-analysis has focused increased attention on the statistical models analysts are using and the assumptions underlying these models. Although comparisons often have been limited to fixed-effects (FE) models, recently there has been a call to investigate the differences between FE and random-effects (RE) models, differences that may have substantial theoretical and applied implications (National Research Council, 1992). Three FE models (including L. V. Hedges & I. Olkin's, 1985, and R. Rosenthal's, 1991, tests) and 2 RE models were applied to simulated correlation data in tests for moderator effects. The FE models seriously underestimated and the RE models greatly overestimated sampling error variance when their basic assumptions were violated, which caused biased confidence intervals and hypothesis tests. The implications of these and other findings are discussed as are methodological issues concerning meta-analyses. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Psychological Methods American Psychological Association

A Comparison of Fixed-Effects and Mixed (Random-Effects) Models for Meta-Analysis Tests of Moderator Variable Effects

Psychological Methods , Volume 3 (3): 26 – Sep 1, 1998

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/a-comparison-of-fixed-effects-and-mixed-random-effects-models-for-meta-k49UiQEPtA

References (30)

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 American Psychological Association
ISSN
1082-989x
eISSN
1939-1463
DOI
10.1037/1082-989X.3.3.354
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The growing popularity of meta-analysis has focused increased attention on the statistical models analysts are using and the assumptions underlying these models. Although comparisons often have been limited to fixed-effects (FE) models, recently there has been a call to investigate the differences between FE and random-effects (RE) models, differences that may have substantial theoretical and applied implications (National Research Council, 1992). Three FE models (including L. V. Hedges & I. Olkin's, 1985, and R. Rosenthal's, 1991, tests) and 2 RE models were applied to simulated correlation data in tests for moderator effects. The FE models seriously underestimated and the RE models greatly overestimated sampling error variance when their basic assumptions were violated, which caused biased confidence intervals and hypothesis tests. The implications of these and other findings are discussed as are methodological issues concerning meta-analyses.

Journal

Psychological MethodsAmerican Psychological Association

Published: Sep 1, 1998

There are no references for this article.