Between Dec 19, 2024 and Jan 2, 2025, datasets can be submitted to DRUM but will not be processed until after the break. Staff will not be available to answer email during this period, and will not be able to provide DOIs until after Jan 2. If you are in need of a DOI during this period, consider Dryad or OpenICPSR. Submission responses to the UDC may also be delayed during this time.

Browsing by Subject "Bonett's meta-analytic model"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    An empirical study of Bonett’s (2009) meta-analytic model
    (2012-10) Xie, Aolin
    A key methodological decision in a meta-analysis has traditionally been the choice between the classic fixed-effects (FE) or random-effects (RE) models assumed to underlie effect sizes (see Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Recent work has criticized these models because of the implausibility of their underlying assumptions (Bonett, 2008, 2009; Hunter & Schmidt, 2000). Bonett (2009a) proposed a modified FE model and recommended using contrasts to compare mean effect sizes among levels of discrete moderators. This study empirically investigated the behavior of the Bonett (2009a) modified FE model and the classic FE model for interval estimation and hypothesis testing of effect size contrasts. The results suggested that the two models performed similarly well with normally distributed data. The Bonett model was robust to nonnormality combined with unequal within-study variances and unequal within-study sample sizes, whereas the classic FE model showed inflated type I error rates and lower statistical power under these conditions.