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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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.

Overview

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

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 47 references

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

Items 801–900 of 1,002

Metadata

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
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