PreprintCited by 124Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferencePsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Bayesian Meta-Analysis with Weakly Informative Prior Distributions

Open access
Williams, Donald Ray, Rast, Philippe, Bürkner, Paul - Christian·2018

Abstract

Developing meta-analytic methods is an important goal for psychological science. When there are few studies in particular, commonly used methods have several limitations, most notably of which is underestimating between-study variability. Although Bayesian methods are often recommended for small sample situations, their performance has not been thoroughly examined in the context of meta-analysis. Here, we characterize and apply weakly informativepriors for estimating meta-analytic models and demonstrate with extensive simulations that fully Bayesian methods overcome boundary estimates of exactly zero between-study variance, better maintain error rates, and have lower frequentist risk according toKullback-Leibler divergence. While our results show that combining evidence with few studiesis non-trivial, we argue that this is an important goal that deserves further considerationin psychology. Further, we suggest that frequentist properties can provide importantinformation for Bayesian modeling. We conclude with meta-analytic guidelines for appliedresearchers that can be implemented with the provided computer code.

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 · 10.31234/osf.io/7tbrm

Cites

80 of 80 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?

  • Results from a complementary Bayesian multilevel meta-analysis model aligned with the pooled effect size estimates: Hedge's g = 0.36, 95% CI [0.19, 0.52].

    “12 Results from a complementary Bayesian multilevel meta-analysis model (Harrer etal., 2019; Williams etal., 2018) with weakly informative priors for true pooled effect size (µ ~ N (0, 1)) and between-study heterogeneity ( τ ~ HC (0, 0.5)) aligned with these pooled effect size estimates: Hedge's g = 0.36, 95% CI [0.19, 0.52].”

    From When Problem Solving Followed by Instruction Works: Evidence for Productive Failure (2021) · cites this paper as Williams et al., 2018

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

1 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Williams, D. R., Rast, P., & Bürkner, P. C.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • University of Münster (DE)
Published
2018-01-10
OpenAlex
W2785297454
Cited by
124
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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
Bayesian meta-analysis, weakly informative priors, study heterogeneity, Kullback-Leibler divergence

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