Cited by 1,330Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferencePsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Fitting three-level meta-analytic models in R: A step-by-step tutorial

Open access
Assink, Mark, Wibbelink, Carlijn J. M.·2016·The Quantitative Methods for Psychology

Abstract

Applying a multilevel approach to meta-analysis is a strong method for dealing with dependency of effect sizes.However, this method is relatively unknown among researchers and, to date, has not been widely used in meta-analytic research.Therefore, the purpose of this tutorial was to show how a three-level random effects model can be applied to meta-analytic models in R using the rma.mv function of the metafor package.This application is illustrated by taking the reader through a step-by-step guide to the multilevel analyses comprising the steps of (1) organizing a data file; (2) setting up the R environment; (3) calculating an overall effect; (4) examining heterogeneity of within-study variance and between-study variance; (5) performing categorical and continuous moderator analyses; and (6) examining a multiple moderator model.By example, the authors demonstrate how the multilevel approach can be applied to meta-analytically examining the association between mental health disorders of juveniles and juvenile offender recidivism.In our opinion, the rma.mv function of the metafor package provides an easy and flexible way of applying a multi-level structure to meta-analytic models in R. Further, the multilevel meta-analytic models can be easily extended so that the potential moderating influence of variables can be examined.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.20982/tqmp.12.3.p154

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The three-level approach estimates moderator effects more precisely and with maximum power.

    “As a result, there no information is lost and (moderator) effects can be estimated more precisely and with maximum power in the statistical analyses (Assink and Wibbelink 2016).”

    From Risk Factors for School Absenteeism and Dropout: A Meta-Analytic Review (2019) · cites this paper as Assink and Wibbelink 2016

    The Introduction says that retaining all relevant effect sizes preserves information and can achieve maximum statistical power; it also explains that the three-level model permits moderator analyses. It does not state that moderator effects are estimated more precisely. The cited passages have no page number in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Moderation analyses should be conducted if less than 75% of the variance can be attributed to Level 1.

    “As recommended by Assink and Wibbelink (2016), moderation analyses should be conducted if less than 75% of the variance can be attributed to Level 1.”

    From Therapeutic games to reduce anxiety and depression in young people: A systematic review and exploratory meta‐analysis of their use and effectiveness. (2024) · cites this paper as Assink and Wibbelink (2016)

    In “A different approach to heterogeneity” (page not available in our copy), the paper says that less than 75% of total variance attributable to Level 1 sampling variance indicates substantial heterogeneity. It says moderator analyses “may be fruitful” in that case, rather than that they should be conducted; the citing sentence makes the recommendation more categorical. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There is no need to know the correlations between outcomes extracted from one study for estimating the covariance matrix of the effect sizes because the second level in the model accounts for sampling covariation.

    “There is no need to know the correlations between outcomes extracted from one study for estimating the covariance matrix of the effect sizes since the second level in the model accounts for sampling covariation ( Assink and Wibbelink, 2016 ).”
  • A three-level model with random effects for data points within one article was used to account for intra-study dependency of prevalence estimates.

    “To deal with this intra-study dependency of prevalence estimates, we opted for the three-level model with random effects for data points obtained within one article to calculate pooled prevalence estimates (29, 30).”
  • A multilevel approach to meta-analysis accounts for the hierarchical structure of the data in which effect sizes are nested within studies.

    “we used a multilevel approach to metaanalysis (Assink & Wibbelink, 2016), which is a strong method for dealing with dependency of effect sizes, as it accounts for the hierarchical structure of the data in which effect sizes are nested within studies (Van Den Noortgate & Onghena, 2003).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Egger, M. and Davey-Smith, G. and Altman, D., 2001, Systematic Reviews in Healthcare

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Assink, M., & Wibbelink, C. J. M.
Affiliations
University of Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Assink, Mark
Venue
The Quantitative Methods for Psychology
Published
2016-10-01
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
154-174
ISSN
2292-1354 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2532414435
Cited by
1,330
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 345 · 2025: 244 · 2024: 208 · 2023: 146 · 2022: 134 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
21.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Quantitative Methods for Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Universiteit Maastricht
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
multilevel meta-analysis, R programming language, effect size heterogeneity, between-study variance, moderator analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review