[R-meta] rma.mv for studies reporting composite of and/or individual subscales

[Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (SP)]

My apologies, but I am still struggling to understand the 'standard' versus 'alternative' view distinction. Maybe somebody else who understands this better can help further.

Best,
Wolfgang

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Timothy MacKenzie [mailto:fswfswt using gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, 25 November, 2021 4:56
>To: Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (SP)
>Cc: R meta
>Subject: Re: rma.mv for studies reporting composite of and/or individual
>subscales
>
>Note:
>by unique composites (e.g., AB;  AC;  ABC): I mean a study made its
>composite out of A&B; another study made its composite out of A&C, and
>another study made its composite out of A&B&C etc
>
>by reporting subscales separately (e.g., A,B;  A,C;  A,B,C): I mean a
>study separately reported A and B; another study separately reported A
>and C, and another study separately reported A and B and C
>
>On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 3:10 PM Timothy MacKenzie <fswfswt using gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> By standard view, I mean the usual/standard way in which construct X
>> should be measured (i.e., using a scale whose subscales are A, B, C).
>>
>> Under this standard view, when we look at the literature, we see:
>>
>> 1- Some studies mixed and matched the usual subscales to create their
>> unique composites (e.g., AB;  AC;  ABC)
>> 2- Some studies report some or all these usual subscales and report
>> each separately (e.g., A,B;  A,C;  A,B,C)
>>
>> By alternative view, I mean the researcher-constructed ways in which
>> construct X can be measured (i.e., using ANY scale whose subscales can
>> be ANYTHING appropriate to the researchers e.g., E,F,G ...).
>>
>> Under this alternative view, when we look at the literature, we see:
>>
>> (3) Some studies mixed and matched their own subscales to create their
>> unique composites (e.g., EF;  EG;  EFG),
>> (4) Some studies report some or all such subscales separately (e.g.,
>> E,F;  E,G;  E,F,G)
>>
>> The result of such a trend is the data structure below. Therefore,
>> there are three gray areas for me:
>>
>> 1) Dealing with composite vs separate subscales (resolved:-)
>> 2) Dealing with whether effects have been obtained under standard or
>> alternative view (maybe this should be a moderator?)
>> 3) How should this data be subgrouped i.e., only by composite vs.
>> subscales or by standard vs. alternative view?
>>
>> Thanks, Tim M
>>
>> study subscale  reporting  obs  include
>> 1        A      subscale   1    yes
>> 1        A      subscale   2    yes
>> 1        B      subscale   3    yes
>> 1        B      subscale   4    yes
>> 2        A&C    composite  5    yes
>> 3        G&F    composite  6    yes
>> 4        E      subscale   7    yes
>> 4        F      subscale   8    yes
>> 4        E&F    composite  9    no