[R-meta] Standard Error of an effect size for use in longitudinal meta-analysis
Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (SP)
wo||g@ng@v|echtb@uer @end|ng |rom m@@@tr|chtun|ver@|ty@n|
Mon Aug 17 08:58:36 CEST 2020
If you have unbiased estimates y1 and y2, then y1-y2 is also unbiased, so no, there is no need to correct y1-y2.
If you also have unbiased estimates of the sampling variances, Var[y1] and Var[y2], then Var[y1] + Var[y2] is an unbiased estimate of the sampling variance of y1-y2 (note that this assumes that y1 and y2 are independent).
The large-sample variances of y1 and y2 are not unbiased, neither before or after multiplying them with cfactor(n-1)^2. The equation for an unbiased estimate of Var[y1] and Var[y2] is given in Viechtbauer (2007).
Best,
Wolfgang
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Simon Harmel [mailto:sim.harmel using gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, 13 August, 2020 1:39
>To: Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (SP)
>Cc: R meta
>Subject: Re: Standard Error of an effect size for use in longitudinal meta-
>analysis
>
>Dear Wolfang,
>
>Thank you very much for your insightful comments. Regarding my question # 2,
>I meant after correcting "dppc" and "dppt" (as well as their sampling
>variances "vc" and "vt"), is there any need for further correction of d_dif
>and sqrt(vt + vc)? I think no, right?
>
>Now, am I wrong to think that your large sample "vc" and "vt" need to be
>multiplied by "cfactor(n-1)^2" to become bias-free?
>
>where cfactor = function(df) exp(lgamma(df/2)-log(sqrt(df/2)) - lgamma((df-
>1)/2)) # df = n -1
>
>Simon
>
>On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 1:36 AM Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (SP)
><wolfgang.viechtbauer using maastrichtuniversity.nl> wrote:
>1) Yes, d = (m_1 - m_2) / SD_d (where m_1 and m_2 are the observed means at
>time 1 and 2 and SD_d is the standard deviation of the change scores) is a
>biased estimator of (mu_1-mu_2)/sigma_D. An approximatly unbiased estimator
>is given by:
>
>g = (1 - 3/(4*(n-1) - 1) * d
>
>See, for example:
>
>Gibbons, R. D., Hedeker, D. R., & Davis, J. M. (1993). Estimation of effect
>size from a series of experiments involving paired comparisons. Journal of
>Educational Statistics, 18(3), 271-279.
>
>where you can also find the exact correction factor.
>
>Not sure what you mean by correcting the sampling variance (and which
>variance estimate you are referring to). You can find the equation for an
>unbiased estimator of the sampling variance of d and g in:
>
>Viechtbauer, W. (2007). Approximate confidence intervals for standardized
>effect sizes in the two-independent and two-dependent samples design.
>Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32(1), 39-60.
>
>In particular, see equations 25 and 26.
>
>2) I don't understand your question.
>
>3) The idea of using 'd_dif' for computing an effect size for independent-
>groups pretest–posttest design is not new. See Gibbons et al. (1993) and:
>
>Becker, B. J. (1988). Synthesizing standardized mean-change measures.
>British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 41(2), 257-278.
>
>Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in
>meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs.
>Psychological Methods, 7(1), 105-125.
>
>In this context, one also needs to consider whether one should compute d or
>g using raw-score or change-score standardization (the former being (m1-
>m2)/SD_1 where SD_1 is the standard deviations at the first time point).
>Becker (1988) discusses the use of raw-score standardization, while Gibbons
>et al. (1993) is focused on change-score standardization. In any case, I
>think you will find some useful discussions in these articles.
>
>Best,
>Wolfgang
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Simon Harmel [mailto:sim.harmel using gmail.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, 11 August, 2020 23:22
>>To: Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (SP)
>>Cc: R meta
>>Subject: Re: Standard Error of an effect size for use in longitudinal meta-
>>analysis
>>
>>Dear Wolfang,
>>
>>Many thanks for your confirmation! I have some follow-up questions.
>>
>>(1) I believe "dppc" is biased and requires a correction, so does its
>>sampling variance, right?
>>
>>(2) If "dppc" and "dppt" (along with their sampling variances) are each
>>biased and must be corrected, then, we don't need to again correct the
>>sampling variance of "d_dif" (i.e., dppt - dppc)?
>>
>>(3) Do you see any advantage or disadvantage for using "d_dif" in
>>longitudinal meta-analysis where studies that have a control group?
>>
>>[In terms of advantages:
>> a- I think logistically using "d_dif" will reduce the number of effect
>>sizes that are otherwise usually computed from such studies by half,
>> b- "d_dif"'s metric seems to better suit the repeated measures design used
>>in the primary studies,
>> c- "d_dif" seems to allow for investigating (by using appropriate
>>moderators) the threats to the internal validity (regression to mean,
>>history, maturation, testing) say when the primary studies didn't use
>random
>>assignment of subjects (i.e., nonequivalent groups designs)
>>
>>In terms disadvantages:
>> a- I think obtaining "r", the correlation bet. pre- and post-tests to
>>compute "dppc" and "dppt" is a bit difficult,
>> b- while "d_dif"'s metric seems to better suit the repeated measures
>design
>>used in the primary studies, most applied meta-analysts are not used to
>such
>>a metric.
>>]
>>
>>On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 2:04 PM Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (SP)
>><wolfgang.viechtbauer using maastrichtuniversity.nl> wrote:
>>Dear Simon,
>>
>>Based on what you describe, dppc and dppt appear to be standardized mean
>>changes using what I would call "change-score standardization" (i.e., (m1 -
>>m2)/SDd, where SDd is the standard deviation of the change scores).
>>
>>I haven't really tried to figure out the details of what you are doing (and
>>I am not familiar with the distr package), but the large-sample sampling
>>variances of dppc and dppt are:
>>
>>vc = 1/nc + dppc^2/(2*nc)
>>
>>and
>>
>>vt = 1/nt + dppt^2/(2*nt)
>>
>>(or to be precise, these are the estimates of the sampling variances, since
>>dppc and dppt have been plugged in for the unknown true values).
>>
>>Hence, the SE of dppt - dppc is simply:
>>
>>sqrt(vt + vc)
>>
>>For the "example use" data, this is:
>>
>>sqrt((1/40 + 0.2^2 / (2*40)) + (1/40 + 0.4^2 / (2*40)))
>>
>>which yields 0.2291288.
>>
>>Running your code yields 0.2293698. The former is a large-sample
>>approximation while you seem to be using an 'exact' approach, so they are
>>not expected to coincide, but should be close, which they are.
>>
>>Best,
>>Wolfgang
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Simon Harmel [mailto:sim.harmel using gmail.com]
>>>Sent: Tuesday, 11 August, 2020 14:59
>>>To: R meta
>>>Cc: Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (SP)
>>>Subject: Standard Error of an effect size for use in longitudinal meta-
>>>analysis
>>>
>>>Dear All,
>>>
>>>Suppose I know that the likelihood function for an estimate of effect size
>>>(called `dppc`) measuring the change in a "control" group from pre-test to
>>>post-test in R language is given by:
>>>
>>> like1 <- function(x) dt(dppc*sqrt(nc), df = nc - 1, ncp = x*sqrt(nc))
>>>
>>>where `dppc` is the observed estimate of effect size, and `nc` is the
>>>"control" group's sample size.
>>>
>>>Similarly, the likelihood function for an estimate of effect size (called
>>>`dppt`) measuring the change in a "treatment" group from pre-test to post-
>>>test in `R` language is given by:
>>>
>>> like2 <- function(x) dt(dppt*sqrt(nt), df = nt - 1, ncp = x*sqrt(nt))
>>>
>>>where `dppt` is the observed estimate of effect size, and `nt` is the
>>>"treatment" group's sample size.
>>>
>>>>>>"Question:" Is there any way to find the "Standard Error (SE)" of the
>>>`d_dif = dppt - dppc` (in `R`)?
>>>
>>>Below, I tried to first get the likelihood function of `d_dif` and then
>get
>>>the *Standard Deviation* of that likelihood function. In a sense, I
>assumed
>>>I have a Bayesian problem with a "flat prior" and thus "SE" is the
>standard
>>>deviation of the likelihood of `d_dif`.
>>>
>>>>>> But I am not sure if my work below is at least approximately correct?
>-
>>-
>>>Thank you, Simon
>>>
>>> library(distr)
>>>
>>> d_dif <- Vectorize(function(dppc, dppt, nc, nt){
>>>
>>> like1 <- function(x) dt(dppc*sqrt(nc), df = nc - 1, ncp = x*sqrt(nc))
>>> like2 <- function(x) dt(dppt*sqrt(nt), df = nt - 1, ncp = x*sqrt(nt))
>>>
>>> d1 <- distr::AbscontDistribution(d = like1, low1 = -15, up1 = 15,
>>>withStand = TRUE)
>>> d2 <- distr::AbscontDistribution(d = like2, low1 = -15, up1 = 15,
>>>withStand = TRUE)
>>>
>>> like.dif <- function(x) distr::d(d2 - d1)(x) ## Gives likelihood of
>>the
>>>difference i.e., `d_dif`
>>>
>>> Mean <- integrate(function(x) x*like.dif(x), -Inf, Inf)[[1]]
>>> SE <- sqrt(integrate(function(x) x^2*like.dif(x), -Inf, Inf)[[1]] -
>>>Mean^2)
>>>
>>> return(c(SE = SE))
>>> })
>>>
>>> # EXAMPLE OF USE:
>>> d_dif(dppc = .2, dppt = .4, nc = 40, nt = 40)
More information about the R-sig-meta-analysis
mailing list