tips:comp_two_independent_estimates
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | Next revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
tips:comp_two_independent_estimates [2020/07/03 10:28] – Wolfgang Viechtbauer | tips:comp_two_independent_estimates [2020/07/03 10:32] – Wolfgang Viechtbauer | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
Signif. codes: | Signif. codes: | ||
</ | </ | ||
- | The result is very similar to what we saw earlier: The coefficient | + | The result is very similar to what we saw earlier: The coefficient |
However, the results are not exactly identical. The reason for this is as follows. When we fit separate random-effects models in the two subsets, we are allowing the amount of heterogeneity within each set to be different (as shown earlier, the estimates were $\hat{\tau}^2 = 0.393$ and $\hat{\tau}^2 = 0.212$ for studies using and not using random assignment, respectively). On the other hand, the mixed-effects meta-regression model fitted above has a single variance component for the amount of residual heterogeneity, | However, the results are not exactly identical. The reason for this is as follows. When we fit separate random-effects models in the two subsets, we are allowing the amount of heterogeneity within each set to be different (as shown earlier, the estimates were $\hat{\tau}^2 = 0.393$ and $\hat{\tau}^2 = 0.212$ for studies using and not using random assignment, respectively). On the other hand, the mixed-effects meta-regression model fitted above has a single variance component for the amount of residual heterogeneity, |
tips/comp_two_independent_estimates.txt · Last modified: 2024/04/18 11:36 by Wolfgang Viechtbauer