[R-meta] negative reliability

Catia Oliveira c@t|@@o||ve|r@ @end|ng |rom york@@c@uk
Wed Apr 26 21:43:24 CEST 2023

Dear all,

I am running a meta-analysis on the reliability of a task (computed as a
correlation between sessions or halves of the task depending on whether it
is test-retest or split-half reliability) and I have come across one result
that I am not sure how to handle. According to the authors, they found
negative reliability and, because of that, they applied a correction
suggested by Krus and Helmstadter(1993). Thus, I am wondering if I should
use the original correlation or the corrected one. When authors applied the
Spearman-Brown correction I reverted them to the original score, but with
this one I don't know if such an approach is OK. My intuition would be to
keep them as the original measure since that's the most common approach and
there isn't sufficient information to allow us to test the impact of these
corrections. But I would appreciate your input on this.
Thank you.

Best wishes,


	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

More information about the R-sig-meta-analysis mailing list