[R-meta] Meta-Analysis using different correlation coefficients

Dear Lena,

since you haven't received a response yet, I will address some points:

It is important to define a target effect size for the meta-analysis, 
e.g. Pearson correlation r. If other effect sizes are reported in the 
primary studies then one could transform them or use the raw data to 
compute the target effect size.

If Pearson correlation is the target effect size and you have 
point-biserial correlations then no transformation is necessary because 
it is mathematically equivalent to Pearson correlation.

Spearman correlation and Pearson correlation will not always lead to 
similar values, as the latter is less likely to detect nonlinear 
(monotonic) relationships. Therefore, transforming Spearman correlations 
to Pearson correlations could ensure, that the effect size values can be 
interpreted the same way. In this particular case one could use arcsin 
formulas:
de Winter, J. C. F., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2016). Comparing the 
Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients across distributions and 
sample sizes: A tutorial using simulations and empirical data. 
Psychological Methods, 21(3), 273?290. doi.org/10.1037/met0000079
You'll find formulas for other transformations in textbooks and other 
journal articles.

While many meta-analysts tend to use all available information and apply 
all possible transformations (d --> r, Spearman --> Pearson, OR --> r), 
there are some people, who would point out that under certain 
circumstances not all transformations are valid (e.g., d --> r  can the 
distinction between control group and experimental group be thought as a 
part of an underlying continuous distribution or is it a natural 
dichotomy?).
However, some people would argue that every effect size is useful (in 
particular, if the meta-analysis is small).
Sometimes meta-analysts conduct a moderator analysis and compare 
converted effect sizes (e.g., d-->r) with effect sizes that didn't 
require converting (e.g. r), in order to check the influence of pooling 
different designs/effects.

Multiple effect sizes: If there are multiple studies with multiple 
effect sizes then a three-level meta-analysis could be useful. 
Alternatively, one could use cluster-robust variance estimation, e.g. 
cran.r-project.org/web/packages/clubSandwich/vignettes/meta-analysis-with-CRVE.html
If there is only one sample with multiple effects then choosing one 
effect size (e.g., the typical operationalization of the constructs, the 
most valid operationalization) could be an option. Alternatively, one 
could compute a mean effect size, as you have mentioned in your message.

I hope it answers at least some of your questions. Good luck with your 
project!

Best,
Lukasz

[R-meta] Meta-Analysis using different correlation coefficients

Thread (3 messages)