-----Original Message-----
From: Will Hopkins <willthekiwi at gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 01:04
To: Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (NP) <wolfgang.viechtbauer at maastrichtuniversity.nl>
Cc: 'Will Hopkins' <willthekiwi at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [R-meta] Calculation of p values in selmodel
Oh, I just assumed that it was appropriate to pass the usual p value into
selmodel with your new pval= option. Halving the p value did the trick.
I ran it with 2172 simulations in which 90% of non-significant effects were
omitted. The coverage and confidence limits were not quite as good, but
practically the same, as with the usual method. The usual method produced
confidence limits in 2018 of the 2172 sims, whereas the pval method produced
them in 2007, a negligible difference. I had downloaded the latest metafor
from github, and it's showing 4.7-0.
Thanks again for your expertise and engagement, Wolfgang!
Will
-----Original Message-----
From: Viechtbauer, Wolfgang (NP)
<wolfgang.viechtbauer at maastrichtuniversity.nl>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 12:41 AM
To: R Special Interest Group for Meta-Analysis
<r-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org>
Cc: Will Hopkins <willthekiwi at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [R-meta] Calculation of p values in selmodel
If you passed two-sided p-values to the function but the simulated selection
process was based on the significance of one-sided tests (i.e., the
significance plus the direction of the effects), then this doesn't match up
and it should not be a surprise then that the model cannot correct for the
selection process.
Best,
Wolfgang