[R-meta] Questions regarding REML and FE models and R^2 calculation in metafor

Dear list members, I have a follow-up question.

In my dataset I have about 500 experiments (i.e., observations) across 50
articles (i.e., references), but the moderators in question change across
observations only within 7 of the references. Consequently, my rma.mv
model
that uses ~1|Reference as a random effect is over-sensitive to the data
from these 7 studies compared to the others.
In such a case, if I use a rma.mv (or rma.uni) model without a random
effect, would it be more reliable?
And if I do use such a model, how do I compute the R^2 for each moderator
(as sigma^2 is inapplicable)?

Thanks again,
Nevo Sagi

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 10:52?AM Nevo Sagi <nevosagi8 at gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Wolgang,

Thank you for your feedback.

It turns out that I misplaced the equation terms when calculating the
pseudo-R^2.

All the best,
Nevo

On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 3:30?PM Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (NP) <
wolfgang.viechtbauer at maastrichtuniversity.nl> wrote:

Dear Nevo,

Please see my responses below.

Best,
Wolfgang

-----Original Message-----
From: R-sig-meta-analysis [mailto:

r-sig-meta-analysis-bounces at r-project.org] On

Behalf Of Nevo Sagi via R-sig-meta-analysis
Sent: Thursday, 04 May, 2023 11:09
To: r-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org
Cc: Nevo Sagi
Subject: [R-meta] Questions regarding REML and FE models and R^2

calculation in

metafor

Dear list members,

I conducted a meta-analysis on the role of climate in mediating a

specific

ecological process, using the *metafor *package in R.
This is actually a meta-regression, using the rma.mv function, with
*temperature *and *precipitation *as moderators, along with some other
moderators related to experimental design. I also use reference as a

random

effect ('random = ~1|*Reference'*), as some references include more

than

one experiment.

*1. FE vs REML model:*
After reading Wolfgang Viechtbauer's blog post
<https://wviechtb.github.io/metafor/reference/misc-models.html> on the
differences between fixed-effects and random-effects models in the
*metafor *package, I decided to use the FE method, because the studies

I

gathered are not a random sample of the population of hypothetical

studies.

Instead, the sample is biased by underrepresentation of some climates

and

overrepresentation of others.
I wonder whether my interpretation of the difference between FE and

REML

models is correct, and would like to get some feedback on it.

I don't think this is really a good reason for using a FE model, because
the underrepresentation of some climates and overrepresentation of

others

will affect your results either way. The bigger question is if climate

is

an important moderator, which you can examine via meta-regression.

*2. R^2 calculation:*
Reviewers of my manuscript required that I provide R-squared values for
each of the climate moderators.
Using the *metafor *package, only rma.uni models (where random

variables

cannot be specified) provide R^2 estimation.
In a previous conversation in this mailing list, Wolfgang indicated

that

pseudo-R^2 can be calculated based on the variance (sigma2) reported by
models including and excluding the moderator in question:
*(res0$sigma2 - res1$sigma2) / res0$sigma2*
*where 'res0' is the model without coefficients and 'res1' the model

with.*

I have two problems with this solution:
1. FE models do not provide variance components (sigma2). Therefore,

the

pseudo R-squared can be calculated only for REML models. I guess this

can

be explained by the nature of the models, which I don't fully

understand.

Yes, this approach to calculating such pseudo-R^2 values only works in

RE

models.

2. When using REML models and performing the above calculation, I get

weird

results. For example, one of the pseudo R^2 values was above 1. This

cannot

mean that the moderator explained more than 100% of the variance in the
effect size. How comparable is this pseudo R^2 for the standard R^2 of
simpler models?

This is mathematically impossible. (res0$sigma2 - res1$sigma2) /
res0$sigma2 is the same as 1 - res1$sigma2 / res0$sigma2 and the second
term cannot be negative, so the resulting value cannot be larger than 1.

To conclude, I will be glad to get feedback on both problems:
1. Should I use a random-effect or fixed-effect model?
2. How do I get a reliable R^2 or an alternative measure of goodness of

fit

for single-moderator models that include a random structure and a

sampling

variance?

Thank you very much,

Nevo Sagi

--
Dr. Nevo Sagi

Prof. Dror Hawlena's Risk-Management Ecology Lab
Department of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior
The Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Edmond J. Safra Campus at Givat Ram, Jerusalem 9190401, Israel.

--
Dr. Nevo Sagi

Prof. Dror Hawlena's Risk-Management Ecology Lab
Department of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior
The Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Edmond J. Safra Campus at Givat Ram, Jerusalem 9190401, Israel.

--
Dr. Nevo Sagi

Prof. Dror Hawlena's Risk-Management Ecology Lab
Department of Ecology, Evolution & Behavior
The Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Edmond J. Safra Campus at Givat Ram, Jerusalem 9190401, Israel.

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]