z-logo
Premium
On the Q statistic with constant weights for standardized mean difference
Author(s) -
Bakbergenuly Ilyas,
Hoaglin David C.,
Kulinskaya Elena
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
british journal of mathematical and statistical psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.157
H-Index - 51
eISSN - 2044-8317
pISSN - 0007-1102
DOI - 10.1111/bmsp.12263
Subject(s) - mathematics , estimator , statistics , moment (physics) , statistic , constant (computer programming) , confidence interval , econometrics , physics , classical mechanics , computer science , programming language
Cochran's Q statistic is routinely used for testing heterogeneity in meta‐analysis. Its expected value is also used in several popular estimators of the between‐study variance, τ 2 . Those applications generally have not considered the implications of its use of estimated variances in the inverse‐variance weights. Importantly, those weights make approximating the distribution of Q (more explicitly, Q IV ) rather complicated. As an alternative, we investigate a new Q statistic, Q F , whose constant weights use only the studies' effective sample sizes. For the standardized mean difference as the measure of effect, we study, by simulation, approximations to distributions of Q IV and Q F , as the basis for tests of heterogeneity and for new point and interval estimators of τ 2 . These include new DerSimonian–Kacker‐type moment estimators based on the first moment of Q F , and novel median‐unbiased estimators. The results show that: an approximation based on an algorithm of Farebrother follows both the null and the alternative distributions of Q F reasonably well, whereas the usual chi‐squared approximation for the null distribution of Q IV and the Biggerstaff–Jackson approximation to its alternative distribution are poor; in estimating τ 2 , our moment estimator based on Q F is almost unbiased, the Mandel – Paule estimator has some negative bias in some situations, and the DerSimonian–Laird and restricted maximum likelihood estimators have considerable negative bias; and all 95% interval estimators have coverage that is too high whenτ 2 = 0 , but otherwise the Q ‐profile interval performs very well.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom