Message-ID: <a75ae7861e254b0d95c0fece02480c8f@UM-MAIL3214.unimaas.nl>
Date: 2021-12-09T17:09:15Z
From: Wolfgang Viechtbauer
Subject: [R-meta] Removing the intercept in rma.mv after non-significant QM/F test
In-Reply-To: <7f6495c1-f4ea-737e-1b8a-94a8afe9bc88@dewey.myzen.co.uk>
Indeed!
@Tina: Also see this write-up:
https://www.metafor-project.org/doku.php/tips:models_with_or_without_intercept
Best,
Wolfgang
>-----Original Message-----
>From: R-sig-meta-analysis [mailto:r-sig-meta-analysis-bounces at r-project.org] On
>Behalf Of Michael Dewey
>Sent: Thursday, 09 December, 2021 16:59
>To: T D; r-sig-meta-analysis at r-project.org
>Subject: Re: [R-meta] Removing the intercept in rma.mv after non-significant QM/F
>test
>
>Dear Tina
>
>When you leave the intercept in you are testing whether the two levels
>differ. When you take it out you are separately testing for each whether
>its coefficient differs from zero. Those are clearly not the same.
>
>Michel
>
>On 09/12/2021 12:32, T D wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I have a question regarding the rma.mv function.
>>
>> Some QM tests (test of moderation) are not significant. However, I continued to
>investigate both levels of the moderator regardless by removing the intercept
>(i.e with placing a -1 at the end)
>> How sensible is this and what kind of conclusions can I draw when both levels
>(after removing the intercept) produce significant results. I understand I can?t
>draw any overall conclusions for the a priori hypotheses, considering the test of
>moderation was not significant - but generally, I wonder, whether it is ?ok? to
>report this - or whether it is simply wrong to continue with any analysis if the
>QM test is not significant.
>>
>> Many thanks for clarifying.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Tina Dudenh?ffer