skip to main content
訪客
個人書架
我的帳戶
登出
登入
This feature requires javascript
檢索首頁
圖書館首頁
電子期刊
引用參考文獻查詢
指定參考書查詢
新書通報
標籤查詢
線上輔助
語言:
English
繁體中文
This feature required javascript
This feature requires javascript
Primo Search
館藏+文章
館藏+文章
館藏
查館藏
文章
查文章
機構典藏
機構典藏
Search For:
Clear Search Box
Search in:
文章
Or hit Enter to replace search target
Or select another collection:
Search in:
文章
進階檢索
瀏覽查詢
This feature requires javascript
顯示結果:
查詢種類
criteria input
包含在我的檢索語句內
完全相同
顯示結果:
查詢種類 索引
criteria input
任何地方
題名
ISBN
ISSN
Show Results with:
題名
Show Results with:
任何地方
題名
ISBN
ISSN
This feature requires javascript
How much does the typical ecological meta‐analysis overestimate the true mean effect size?
Fox, Jeremy W.
Ecology and evolution, 2022-11, Vol.12 (11), p.e9521-n/a
[同儕審閱期刊]
可取得全文
引用
被引用
線上檢視
詳細格式
評論和標籤
相關文章推薦
FullText@NUTN
引用次數
This feature requires javascript
傳送到
加入個人書架
從個人書架中移除
E-mail
列印
永久連結
引用
EndNote
導出 RiS
This feature requires javascript
題名:
How much does the typical ecological meta‐analysis overestimate the true mean effect size?
著者:
Fox, Jeremy W.
主題:
Agroecology
;
Applied Ecology
;
Autecology
;
Behavioural Ecology
;
best linear unbiased predictions
;
Biodiversity Ecology
;
Biogeochemistry
;
Biogeography
;
Chemical Ecology
;
Community Ecology
;
Conservation Ecology
;
Demography
;
Disease Ecology
;
Ecological effects
;
Ecological Genetics
;
Ecophysiology
;
Ecosystem Ecology
;
Ecosystem Services Studies
;
Ecotoxicology
;
effect size
;
Estimates
;
Evolutionary Ecology
;
Functional Ecology
;
Global Change Ecology
;
Global Ecology
;
hierarchical model
;
Invasion Ecology
;
Landscape Ecology
;
Life History Ecology
;
Macroecology
;
Meta-analysis
;
meta‐meta‐analysis
;
Microbial Ecology
;
Movement Ecology
;
Normal distribution
;
Phenology
;
Population Ecology
;
random effects
;
Regression to mean effect
;
Restoration Ecology
;
Sampling error
;
Seed Ecology
;
Sensory Ecology
;
shrinkage
;
Soil Ecology
;
Spatial Ecology
;
Trophic Interactions
;
Urban Ecology
所屬期刊:
Ecology and evolution, 2022-11, Vol.12 (11), p.e9521-n/a
描述:
Many primary research studies in ecology are underpowered, providing very imprecise estimates of effect size. Meta‐analyses partially mitigate this imprecision by combining data from different studies. But meta‐analytic estimates of mean effect size may still remain imprecise, particularly if the meta‐analysis includes a small number of studies. Imprecise, large‐magnitude estimates of mean effect size from small meta‐analyses likely would shrink if additional studies were conducted (regression towards the mean). Here, I propose a way to estimate and correct this regression to the mean, using meta‐meta‐analysis (meta‐analysis of meta‐analyses). Hierarchical random effects meta‐meta‐analysis shrinks estimated mean effect sizes from different meta‐analyses towards the grand mean, bringing those estimated means closer on average to their unknown true values. The intuition is that, if a meta‐analysis reports a mean effect size much larger in magnitude than that reported by other meta‐analyses, that large mean effect size likely is an overestimate. This intuition holds even if different meta‐analyses of different topics have different true mean effect sizes. Drawing on a compilation of data from hundreds of ecological meta‐analyses, I find that the typical (median) ecological meta‐analysis overestimates the absolute magnitude of the true mean effect size by ~10%. Some small ecological meta‐analyses overestimate the magnitude of the true mean effect size by >50%. Meta‐meta‐analysis is a promising tool for improving the accuracy of meta‐analytic estimates of mean effect size, particularly estimates based on just a few studies. Meta‐analytic estimates of mean effect size can be imprecise and overestimate effect magnitude, particularly if the meta‐analysis includes few studies. Here, I use meta‐meta‐analysis (meta‐analysis of meta‐analyses) to quantify and correct for overestimation of the magnitude of mean effect sizes in ecological meta‐analyses. The typical (median) ecological meta‐analysis overestimates the magnitude of the mean effect size by ~10%, and some meta‐analyses overestimate the magnitude of the mean effect size by >50%.
出版者:
Bognor Regis: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
語言:
英文
識別號:
ISSN: 2045-7758
EISSN: 2045-7758
DOI: 10.1002/ece3.9521
資源來源:
Publicly Available Content Database
Wiley Online Library All Journals
Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection
DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
Wiley Online Library Open Access
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript
返回到檢索清單
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript
正在檢索遠程資料庫,請稍等
查詢:
在
primo_central_multiple_fe
顯示現有記錄
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript