Random Effects Models

By G. B. Wetherill. 1981

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Invariant Representations without Adversarial Training (2018, methodology): “Simple statistical techniques usually involve modifying analyses with corresponding covariate effects [18] or sometimes multi-level regressions [7].”
Correlates of physical health of informal caregivers: a meta-analysis. (2007, methodology): “Impact of Study Characteristics In order to analyze the effect of study characteristics on the size of correlations with physical health, we computed weighted multiple linear regression analyses, based on random-effects models (Raudenbush, 1994).”
Guidelines for Meta-Analyses of Counseling Psychology Research (2006, methodology): “Although we advise readers to refer to other sources for technical details (e.g., Hedges, 1994; Hedges & Pigott, 2004; Raudenbush, 1994), we provide a conceptual overview of moderator analysis.”
Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts (2012, methodology): “Further, to determinewhich study featureswere associated with effect size we used meta-analytic analogs to analysis of variance and regression, assuming a mixed-effects model estimated via full-information maximum likelihood (Overton, 1998; Raudenbush, 1994).”
Biodiversity conservation in the era of biofuels: risks and opportunities (2011, unknown): “Raudenbush SW. 1994.”
Understanding Meta-Analysis: A Review of the Methodological Literature (2008, methodology): “There are two common methods for obtaining a random variability estimate: (a) the method of moments, and (b) the method of maximum likelihood (Raudenbush, 1994; Shadish & Haddock, 1994).”
How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta‐analytic tests of three mediators (2008, unknown): “The random effects approach holds that part of the differences in effects across studies is essentially random whose sources we cannot identify (Hedges, 1994; Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Mosteller & Colditz, 1996; Raudenbush, 1994).”
The Effects of Behavioral/Cognitive-Behavioral Programs on Recidivism (2002, background): “True effect sizes vary “precisely because sources of influence on the outcome are both numerous and unidentifiable” (Raudenbush, 1994, p. 302).”
The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. (2000, background): “Such models include fixed differences between groups of studies and within-study sampling error, but also allow for random between-studies variation from other sources of variance (Raudenbush 1994; Rosenberg et al. 1997).”
Plant reproductive susceptibility to habitat fragmentation: review and synthesis through a meta-analysis. (2006, methodology): “Data were analysed using random-effect models (Raudenbush 1994), which assume that studies differ not only by sampling error (as fixed-effects models do), but also by a random component in effect sizes between studies, which is named pooled study variance (Rosenberg et al. 2000).”
A meta‐analytic investigation into the moderating effects of situational strength on the conscientiousness–performance relationship (2009, methodology): “Statistical significance is assessed via two-tailed t-tests with df1⁄4K P 1 (Raudenbush, 1994), where P (number of predictors)1⁄4 1.”