[R-meta] specified weights in rma
@@@udk@emper @ending from gm@il@com
Mon Aug 6 11:58:00 CEST 2018
thank you very much for your reply, that was very useful - I hadn't
realised the numbers were re-scaled versions of the ones I had specified!
If I understand this correctly then, the re-scaling does not effect my
results, i.e. mean, confidence intervals, p-value?
Thank you very much.
All the best, Antonia
On 3 August 2018 at 14:55, James Pustejovsky <jepusto using gmail.com> wrote:
> The code looks correct to me, and it looks like it is producing the
> weighted average just as you specified:
> mean_effect <- weighted.mean(effect, w = weight)
> all.equal(mean_effect, as.numeric(meta$b), check.attributes = FALSE)
> Also, note that the output of weights() is re-scaled to sum to 100, which
> is why it does not agree with the inputted weights:
> (rma_wt <- weights(meta))
> 100 * weight / sum(weight)
> all.equal(rma_wt, 100 * weight / sum(weight), check.attributes = FALSE)
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 7:10 AM Antonia Sudkaemper <a.sudkaemper using gmail.com>
>> Hello all,
>> I am trying to run a meta-analysis with specified weights, but even though
>> the code seems right the analysis seems to apply the default weights
>> than the ones I specify - is there something wrong with the code?
>> effect = c(2.46, 3.11, 3.93)
>> error = c(0.44, 0.38, 0.57)
>> weight = c(5.16, 6.70, 3.05)
>> study<-c("Study1", "Study2", "Study3")
>> summary(meta <- rma(yi=effect, sei=error, weights=weight, slab=study))
>> Thank you very much for your help.
>> All the best, Antonia
>> Antonia Sudkämper
>> PhD Candidate in Organizational Psychology/University of Exeter
>> a.sudkaemper using gmail.com
>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>> R-sig-meta-analysis mailing list
>> R-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org
PhD Candidate in Organizational Psychology/University of Exeter
a.sudkaemper using gmail.com
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
More information about the R-sig-meta-analysis