[R-meta] rma.mv for studies reporting composite of and/or individual subscales
|@w|@wt @end|ng |rom gm@||@com
Wed Nov 24 19:35:53 CET 2021
So, you think there is no need to keep everything (i.e., fixed and
random) separate between studies that only contribute composite and
studies that only contribute separate subscales?
If there is no need, and both types of studies can be in one model,
then methodologically, wouldn't it be mixing apples (different
subscales) and oranges (different composites) in one model?
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 12:22 PM Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (SP)
<wolfgang.viechtbauer using maastrichtuniversity.nl> wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Timothy MacKenzie [mailto:fswfswt using gmail.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, 24 November, 2021 19:18
> >To: Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (SP)
> >Cc: R meta
> >Subject: Re: rma.mv for studies reporting composite of and/or individual
> >>rma.mv(es ~ reporting:X1, vi, random = list(~1| study, ~ reporting |
> >>obs), struct = "DIAG", subset = include == "yes")
> >Not sure what X1 is, but yes, this could be a plausible model,
> >allowing for different within-study variances for 'subscale' versus
> >'composite' estimates.
> >>>>>X1 is a moderator but I think I should keep X1 separate between studies for
> >which we have used their composite result and studies for which we have used
> >their subscale results, no?
> That's up to you or one could empirically examine if the association between X1 and es is different for the two types.
More information about the R-sig-meta-analysis