[R-meta] Questions about multilevel meta-analysis structure

[Reza Norouzian]

James' responses are right on. I typed this up a bit ago so instead of
dumping them I put them here in case they might be helpful.

In general, modeling effect sizes may often depend at least on a couple of
things. First, what are study goals/objectives? For example, would that be
one of your study goals/objectives to understand the extent of
relationships that exists among the true effects associated with your 9
different cognitive domains? Does such an understanding help you back an
existing theoretical/practical view up or bring up a new one to the fore?

If yes, then potentially one of “~inner | outer” type formulas in your
model could to some extent help.

Second, do you have empirical support to achieve your study goal? This one
essentially explains why I hedged a bit (‘potentially’, ‘one of’, ‘to some
extent’) toward the end when describing the first goal above. Typically,
the structure of the data that you have collected could determine which (if
any) of the available random-effects structures can lend empirical support
to your initial goal.

Some of these structures like UN allow you to tap into all the existing
bivariate relationships between your 9 different cognitive domains. But
that comes with a requirement. Those 9 cognitive domains must have
co-occurred in a good number of the studies you have included in your
meta-analysis. To the extent that this is not the case, you may need to
simplify your random-effects structures using alternatively available
structures (CS, HCS etc.).

Responses to your questions are in-line below.

1. Is my model correctly structured to account for dependency using the
inner | outer formula (see MODEL 1 CODE below) or should I just specify
random effects at the study and unique effect size level (see MODEL 2 CODE
below).

Please see my introductory explanation above. But please also note that
“struct=” only works with formulas that are of the form “~inner | outer”
where inner is something other than intercept (other than ~1). Thus, UN
is entirely ignored in model 2.

2. If I do need to specify an inner | outer formula to compare effect sizes
across cognitive domains, then is an unstructured variance-covariance
matrix ("UN") most appropriate (allowing tau^2 to differ among cognitive
domains) or should another structure be specified?

Please see my introductory explanation above.

3. To account for effect size dependency is a variance-covariance matrix
necessary (this is what my model currently uses) or is it ok to use
sampling variance of each in the multilevel model.

I’m assuming you’re referring to V. You’re not currently showing the
structure of V. See also James' response.

4. When subsetting my data by one cognitive domain and investigating this
same cognitive domain in a univariate multilevel model the effect estimate
tends to be lower compared to when all cognitive domains are included in a
single multilevel model as a moderator, is there a reason for this?

See James’ answer.


On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 9:53 AM James Pustejovsky via R-sig-meta-analysis <
r-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org> wrote:

> Hi Isaac,
>
> Comments inline below. (You've hit on something I'm interested in, so
> apologies in advance!)
>
> James
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 12:17 AM Isaac Calvin Saywell via
> R-sig-meta-analysis <r-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > 1. Is my model correctly structured to account for dependency using the
> > inner | outer formula (see MODEL 1 CODE below) or should I just specify
> > random effects at the study and unique effect size level (see MODEL 2
> CODE
> > below).
> >
> >
> The syntax looks correct to me except for two things. First, the first
> argument of each model should presumably be yi = yi rather than vi. Second,
> in Model 2, the struct argument is not necessary and will be ignored (it's
> only relevant for models where the random effects have inner | outer
> structure).
>
> Conceptually, this is an interesting question. Model 1 is theoretically
> appealing because it uses a more flexible, general structure than Model 2.
> Model 1 is saying that there are different average effects for each
> cognitive domain, and each study has a unique set of effects per cognitive
> domain that are distinct from each other but can be inter-correlated. In
> contrast, Model 2 is saying that the study-level random effects apply
> equally to all cognitive domains---if study X has higher-than-average
> effects in domain A, then it will have effects in domain B that are equally
> higher-than-average.
>
> The big caveat with Model 2 is that it can be hard to fit unless you have
> lots of studies, and specifically lots of studies that report effects for
> multiple cognitive domains. To figure out if it is feasible to estimate
> this model, it can be useful to do some descriptives where you count the
> number of studies that include effect sizes from each possible *pair* of
> cognitive domains. If some pairs have very few studies, then it's going to
> be difficult or impossible to fit the multivariate random effects structure
> without imposing further restrictions.
>
> In case it's looking infeasible, there are some other random effects
> structures that are intermediate between Model 1 and Model 2, which might
> be worth trying:
> Model 1.0: random = list(~ cog_domain | study_id, ~ 1 | effectsize_id),
> struct = "UN"
> Model 1.1: random = list(~ cog_domain | study_id, ~ 1 | effectsize_id),
> struct = "HCS"
> Model 1.2: random = list(~ cog_domain | study_id, ~ 1 | effectsize_id),
> struct = "CS"
> Model 1.2 (equivalent specification, I think): random = ~ 1 | study_id /
> cog_domain / effectsize_id
> Model 2.0: random = list(~ 1 | study_id, ~ 1 | effectsize_id)
> Model 2.0 (equivalent specification): random = ~ 1 | study_id /
> effectsize_id
>
> So perhaps there is something in between 1.0 and 2.0 that will strike a
> balance between theoretical appeal and feasibility.
>
>
> > 2. If I do need to specify an inner | outer formula to compare effect
> > sizes across cognitive domains, then is an unstructured
> variance-covariance
> > matrix ("UN") most appropriate (allowing tau^2 to differ among cognitive
> > domains) or should another structure be specified?
> >
> > See previous response.
>
>
> > 3. To account for effect size dependency is a variance-covariance matrix
> > necessary (this is what my model currently uses) or is it ok to use
> > sampling variance of each in the multilevel model.
> >
>
> This has been discussed previously on the listserv. My perspective is that
> you should use whatever assumptions are most plausible. If you expect that
> there really is correlation in the sampling errors (e.g., because the
> effect size estimates are based on correlated outcomes measured on the same
> set of respondents), then I think it is more defensible to use a
> non-diagonal V matrix, as in your current syntax.
>
>
> >
> > 4. When subsetting my data by one cognitive domain and investigating this
> > same cognitive domain in a univariate multilevel model the effect
> estimate
> > tends to be lower compared to when all cognitive domains are included in
> a
> > single multilevel model as a moderator, is there a reason for this?
> >
>
> Is this true for *all* of the cognitive domains or only one or a few of
> them? Your Model 1 and Model 2 use random effects models that assume effect
> sizes from different cognitive domains are somewhat related (i.e., the
> random effects are correlated within study) and so the average effect for a
> given domain will be estimated based in part on the effect size estimates
> for that domain and in part by "borrowing information" from other domains
> that are correlated with it. Broadly speaking, the consequence of this
> borrowing of information is that the average effects will tend to be pulled
> toward each other, and thus will be a little less dispersed than if you
> estimate effects through subgroup analysis.
>
> The above would explain why some domains would get pulled downward in the
> multivariate model compared to the univariate model, but it would not
> explain why *all* of the domains are pulled down. If it's really all of
> them, then I suspect your data must have some sort of association between
> average effect size and the number of effect size estimates per study.
> That'd be weird and I'm not really sure how to interpret it. You could
> check on this by calculating a variable (call it k_j) that is the number of
> effect size estimates reported per study (across any cognitive domain) and
> then including that variable as a predictor in Model 1 or Model 2 above.
> This would at least tell you if there's something funky going on...
>
> As a bit of an aside, you can do the equivalent of a subgroup analysis
> within the framework of a multivariate working model, which might be
> another thing to explore to figure out what's going on. To do this, you'll
> first need to recalculate your V matrix, setting the subgroup argument to
> be equal to cog_domain. This amounts to making the assumption that there is
> correlation between effect size estimates *within* the same domain but not
> between domains of a given study. Call this new V matrix V_sub. Then try
> the following model specifications:
>
> Model 2.1: V = V_sub, random = list(~ cog_domain | study_id, ~ cog_domain |
> effectsize_id), struct = c("DIAG","DIAG")
> Model 2.2: V = V_sub, random = list(~ cog_domain | study_id, ~ 1 |
> effectsize_id), struct = "DIAG",
>
> Model 2.1 should reproduce what you get from running separate models by
> subgroup.
> Model 2.2 is a slight tweak on that, which assumes that there is a common
> within-study, within-subgroup variance instead of allowing this to differ
> by subgroup. Model 2.2 is nested in Models 1.0 and 1.1, but not in 1.2.
>
>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-sig-meta-analysis mailing list @ R-sig-meta-analysis using r-project.org
> To manage your subscription to this mailing list, go to:
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-meta-analysis
>

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]