Yes, but... [General Statistics]
Ahoi!
Yes. After RTFM and setting up the model with a study × period interaction term, I'm getting exactly the same results as with faked four periods.
There are only minor differences between the 'faked 4 period' and interaction set-ups, probably due to numerical issues. More significant digits below:
Apart from the technical issues, my main concern remains alpha in the combined analysis.

Though a sailor and a scuba-instructor supposedly are familiar with murcky waters, I guess we would need some statistical consultancy here.
Wist het anker!
❝ Just re-read your post - you are suggesting exactly the same if I interpret your post right?
Yes. After RTFM and setting up the model with a study × period interaction term, I'm getting exactly the same results as with faked four periods.
There are only minor differences between the 'faked 4 period' and interaction set-ups, probably due to numerical issues. More significant digits below:
Faked Periods: 95.1926% (91.1103% - 99.4578%), CVintra 9.02706%
Period × Study: 95.1915% (91.1007% - 99.4660%), CVintra 9.04355%Apart from the technical issues, my main concern remains alpha in the combined analysis.

Though a sailor and a scuba-instructor supposedly are familiar with murcky waters, I guess we would need some statistical consultancy here.
Wist het anker!

—
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/pics/Blue_and_yellow_ribbon_UA.png)
Helmut Schütz
![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/img/CC by.png)
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна!
![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/pics/Blue_and_yellow_ribbon_UA.png)
Helmut Schütz
![[image]](https://static.bebac.at/img/CC by.png)
The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
Complete thread:
- Meta-analysis earlybird 2010-04-09 07:54 [General Statistics]
- Meta-analysis in SAS d_labes 2010-04-09 08:35
- Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling Helmut 2010-04-09 20:33
- Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling ElMaestro 2010-04-09 22:02
- Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling Helmut 2010-04-09 22:11
- Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling ElMaestro 2010-04-09 22:20
- Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling Helmut 2010-04-10 00:49
- Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling ElMaestro 2010-04-10 08:13
- Yes, but...Helmut 2010-04-10 14:46
- Yes, but... ElMaestro 2010-04-11 11:44
- Yes, but... Helmut 2010-04-11 14:27
- Yes, but... ElMaestro 2010-04-11 11:44
- Yes, but...Helmut 2010-04-10 14:46
- Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling ElMaestro 2010-04-10 08:13
- Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling Helmut 2010-04-10 00:49
- Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling ElMaestro 2010-04-09 22:20
- Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling Helmut 2010-04-09 22:11
- Meta-analysis alpha d_labes 2010-04-12 13:32
- Meta-analysis alpha Helmut 2010-04-12 14:25
- 2-Study Meta-analysis d_labes 2010-04-12 15:03
- 2-Study Meta-analysis Helmut 2010-04-12 15:18
- Anatomical miracle d_labes 2010-04-12 15:33
- Anatomical miracle Helmut 2010-04-12 15:40
- Anatomical miracle d_labes 2010-04-12 15:33
- 2-Study Meta-analysis Helmut 2010-04-12 15:18
- 2-Study Meta-analysis d_labes 2010-04-12 15:03
- Meta-analysis alpha Helmut 2010-04-12 14:25
- Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling ElMaestro 2010-04-09 22:02
- Meta-analysis vs. naïve pooling Helmut 2010-04-09 20:33
- Meta-analysis in SAS d_labes 2010-04-09 08:35
