[R-meta] rma.mv only for better SEs

Just try it out and you will see what happens.

Best,
Wolfgang

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Harmel [mailto:sim.harmel at gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 31 January, 2022 18:21
To: Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (SP)
Cc: R meta
Subject: Re: [R-meta] rma.mv only for better SEs

Thank you, Wolfgang. I asked this, because I noticed applying RVE to an

rma.mv()

model has no bearing on the estimates of fixed effects themselves, and

just

modifies their SEs.

So, I wondered if the same rule, at least "in principle", should apply

when we go

from rma() to rma.mv().

But is there a principle regarding how random effects affect the fixed

effects?

For instance, in:

1- rma.mv(y ~ 1, random = ~ 1|study/obs), the overall average only

represents the

average of study-level effects.

But, in:

2- rma.mv(y ~ 1, random = ~ 1|study/outcome/obs), the overall average

represents

the average of study-level effects additionally affected by the

outcome-level

effects within them.

And thus, 1- and 2- may give different overall averages, right?

Simon

On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 11:00 AM Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (SP)
<wolfgang.viechtbauer at maastrichtuniversity.nl> wrote:
Generally, two models with different random effects structures will also

give you

different estimates of the fixed effects (unless the estimates of the
variance/covariance components happen to be such that the two models

collapse

down to the same structure).

Best,
Wolfgang

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

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

Behalf Of Simon Harmel
Sent: Monday, 31 January, 2022 17:49
To: R meta
Subject: [R-meta] rma.mv only for better SEs

Hello List Members,

Reviewing the archived posts, my understanding is that my studies can
produce multiple effects, so I should use rma.mv() not rma().

Also, I understand rma.mv() ensures that I get more accurate SEs for my
fixed effects relative to rma().

BUT does that also mean that, by definition, rma.mv() should have no
bearing on the magnitude of the fixed effects themselves and only

modifies

their SEs relative to rma()?

Thank you,
Simon