Estimation and inference for step-function selection models in meta-analyses with dependent effects.

IF 8 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
James E Pustejovsky, Martyna Citkowicz, Megha Joshi
{"title":"Estimation and inference for step-function selection models in meta-analyses with dependent effects.","authors":"James E Pustejovsky, Martyna Citkowicz, Megha Joshi","doi":"10.1017/rsm.2026.10117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Meta-analyses in social science fields face multiple methodological challenges arising from how primary research studies are designed and reported. One challenge is that many primary studies report multiple relevant effect size estimates, leading to a data structure with dependent observations. Another is selective reporting bias, which arises when the availability of study findings is influenced by the statistical significance of results. Although many selective reporting diagnostics and bias-correction methods have been proposed, few are suitable for meta-analyses involving dependent effect sizes. Among available methods, step-function selection models are conceptually appealing and have shown promise in previous simulations, but tend to understate uncertainty in parameter estimates if dependent effects are ignored. We study methods for estimating step-function models from data involving dependent effect sizes, focusing specifically on estimating parameters of the marginal distribution of effect sizes and accounting for dependence using cluster-robust variance estimation or bootstrap resampling. We describe two estimation strategies, demonstrate them by re-analyzing data from a previous synthesis on ego depletion effects, and evaluate their performance through an extensive simulation study under both univariate and multivariate selection processes. Simulation findings indicate that selection models provide low-bias estimates of average effect size and clustered bootstrap confidence intervals provide acceptable coverage levels for meta-analyses with at least 30 studies. Although unadjusted estimates are more efficient when selective reporting is absent or minimal, the proposed methods provide a robust and useful approach for evaluating the potential biases arising when selective reporting is present in meta-analyses with dependent effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":" ","pages":"1-34"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/rsm.2026.10117","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Meta-analyses in social science fields face multiple methodological challenges arising from how primary research studies are designed and reported. One challenge is that many primary studies report multiple relevant effect size estimates, leading to a data structure with dependent observations. Another is selective reporting bias, which arises when the availability of study findings is influenced by the statistical significance of results. Although many selective reporting diagnostics and bias-correction methods have been proposed, few are suitable for meta-analyses involving dependent effect sizes. Among available methods, step-function selection models are conceptually appealing and have shown promise in previous simulations, but tend to understate uncertainty in parameter estimates if dependent effects are ignored. We study methods for estimating step-function models from data involving dependent effect sizes, focusing specifically on estimating parameters of the marginal distribution of effect sizes and accounting for dependence using cluster-robust variance estimation or bootstrap resampling. We describe two estimation strategies, demonstrate them by re-analyzing data from a previous synthesis on ego depletion effects, and evaluate their performance through an extensive simulation study under both univariate and multivariate selection processes. Simulation findings indicate that selection models provide low-bias estimates of average effect size and clustered bootstrap confidence intervals provide acceptable coverage levels for meta-analyses with at least 30 studies. Although unadjusted estimates are more efficient when selective reporting is absent or minimal, the proposed methods provide a robust and useful approach for evaluating the potential biases arising when selective reporting is present in meta-analyses with dependent effects.

具有依赖效应的元分析中阶跃函数选择模型的估计和推断。
社会科学领域的元分析面临着如何设计和报告初级研究的多重方法挑战。一个挑战是,许多初级研究报告了多个相关的效应大小估计,导致数据结构与依赖的观察。另一种是选择性报告偏差,当研究结果的可用性受到结果的统计显著性的影响时,就会出现这种偏差。虽然已经提出了许多选择性报告诊断和偏倚校正方法,但很少有适合涉及依赖效应大小的元分析。在现有的方法中,阶跃函数选择模型在概念上很有吸引力,并且在以前的模拟中显示出前景,但是如果忽略依赖效应,则往往低估参数估计中的不确定性。我们研究了从涉及相关效应大小的数据中估计阶跃函数模型的方法,特别关注于估计效应大小边际分布的参数,并使用聚类-鲁棒方差估计或自举重抽样来计算相关性。我们描述了两种估计策略,通过重新分析先前关于自我耗尽效应的综合数据来证明它们,并通过在单变量和多变量选择过程下的广泛模拟研究来评估它们的性能。模拟结果表明,选择模型提供了平均效应大小的低偏差估计,聚类自举置信区间为至少30项研究的荟萃分析提供了可接受的覆盖水平。虽然在没有选择性报告或选择性报告很少的情况下,未经调整的估计更有效,但所提出的方法为评估在具有依赖效应的荟萃分析中存在选择性报告时产生的潜在偏差提供了一种强大而有用的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Research Synthesis Methods
Research Synthesis Methods MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGYMULTID-MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Research Synthesis Methods is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the development and dissemination of methods for conducting systematic research synthesis. Our aim is to advance the knowledge and application of research synthesis methods across various disciplines. Our journal provides a platform for the exchange of ideas and knowledge related to designing, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting, and applying research synthesis. While research synthesis is commonly practiced in the health and social sciences, our journal also welcomes contributions from other fields to enrich the methodologies employed in research synthesis across scientific disciplines. By bridging different disciplines, we aim to foster collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of research synthesis methods. Whether you are a researcher, practitioner, or stakeholder involved in research synthesis, our journal strives to offer valuable insights and practical guidance for your work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书