[R-meta] Question Re: CI in metafor
jen@@@chueler @ending from wiwi@uni-kl@de
Wed May 30 11:15:54 CEST 2018
I am by far not an expert in the field but I would suggest that you are
referring to differences between the Hedges & Olkin and Hunter & Schmidt
One of the differences, among others (e.g. see Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins &
Rothstein 2009, p. 341) between both is how study weights are computed and
consequently also how CIs are calculated.
Deciding upon which approach to pick might be, in the end of the day, more
or less a matter of preference or research domain.
However, I have recently read an article on issues related to reliability
correction that I found quite interesting:
Von: R-sig-meta-analysis <r-sig-meta-analysis-bounces using r-project.org> Im
Auftrag von Caitlin Porter
Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Mai 2018 22:17
An: r-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org
Betreff: [R-meta] Question Re: CI in metafor
Recently, I have been using the metafor program to run analyses for a
meta-analysis based on the Hunter-Schmidt approach. I have been
double-checking my own calculations with the program, and I found that my
calculations of confidence intervals do not align with the calculations
provided by metafor.
I am using the SD of the corrected Rs as a basis for my CIs (square root of
the variance of the corrected Rs/square root of k), as noted in Schmidt and
Hunter (2013, p. 154, pp. 420-421). However, the confidence intervals that
appear in the metafor output appear to be based upon the sampling error
variance (the square root of Ave(ve)/square root of k).
1) Is there was a reason that the CIs in metafor are based upon this value
as opposed to the one suggested by HS?
2) Is one approach preferred over the other?
Thank you in advance for your insights on this matter!
Caitlin M. Porter, Ph.D.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology Department of Psychology University
3625 Cullen Blvd.
Houston, TX 77204
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
R-sig-meta-analysis mailing list
R-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7675 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the R-sig-meta-analysis