Cited by 1,130Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferencePsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Three-level meta-analysis of dependent effect sizes

Open access
Van den Noortgate, Wim, López-López, José Antonio, Marín-Martínez, Fulgencio, Sánchez-Meca, Julio·2013·Behavior Research Methods

Abstract

Although dependence in effect sizes is ubiquitous, commonly used meta-analytic methods assume independent effect sizes. We describe and illustrate three-level extensions of a mixed effects meta-analytic model that accounts for various sources of dependence within and across studies, because multilevel extensions of meta-analytic models still are not well known. We also present a three-level model for the common case where, within studies, multiple effect sizes are calculated using the same sample. Whereas this approach is relatively simple and does not require imputing values for the unknown sampling covariances, it has hardly been used, and its performance has not been empirically investigated. Therefore, we set up a simulation study, showing that also in this situation, a three-level approach yields valid results: Estimates of the treatment effects and the corresponding standard errors are unbiased.

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 · 10.3758/s13428-012-0261-6

Cites

52 of 52 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 pseudo R2 coefficient used in multilevel meta-regression analysis cannot be considered fully stable when the number of introduced studies is below 40.

    “pseudo R 2 coefficient used in multilevel meta-regression analysis cannot be considered fully stable when the number of introduced studies is below 40 (Van den Noortgate et al., 2013).”

    From Do New Forms of Reading Pay Off? A Meta-Analysis on the Relationship Between Leisure Digital Reading Habits and Text Comprehension (2025) · cites this paper as Van den Noortgate et al., 2013

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) warn that small numbers of studies may bias study-level variance estimates, which lends support to a general concern about stability. But the paper does not identify the pseudo R² coefficient as unstable or give a 40-study cutoff; it says 30 studies is often regarded as the smallest acceptable number and did not simulate fewer than 30. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A three-level meta-analytic model was used to address dependency among effect sizes from the same study.

    “To address this, we employed a three-level meta-analytic model (Cheung, 2014; Van den Noortgate et al., 2013), which allows for the inclusion of all relevant effect sizes and addresses the issue of dependent effect sizes within studies by modeling three distinct sources of variation”

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: 2

  1. [12]12. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta- analysis. Orlando: Academic Press.
  2. [17]17. Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. New York: Wiley.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van den Noortgate, W., López-López, J. A., Marín-Martínez, F., & Sánchez-Meca, J.
Affiliations
Universidad de Murcia (ES)
Venue
Behavior Research Methods
Published
2012-10-09
Volume
45
Issue
2
Pages
576-594
ISSN
  • 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-3528
OpenAlex
W2086645795
Cited by
1,130
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 247 · 2025: 154 · 2024: 150 · 2023: 114 · 2022: 136 · 2021: 78 · 2020: 65 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5
FWCI
2.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, treatment effect estimation, standard error bias
MeSH terms
Models, Psychological, Models, Theoretical, Sampling Studies, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Models, Statistical, Multivariate 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