Dear all, In my meta-analysis, I have multiple effect sizes coming from the same study, and these effects are nested with the studies. So, to account for both between-study and within-study variance/heterogeneity, I gave identifiers for each study (StudyID) and each effect (EffectSizeID), and included them into the model as random effects, i.e., "random = ~1 | (StudyID / EffectSizeID)". For this, I received a comment from one of the reviewers as follows, "It took me a long time to figure out why you are using EffectSizeID as a random effect, especially since this observation-level random effect approach is mainly used to control for overdispersion in Poisson regressions. Based on the response to reviewers, I think you are using it to account for heteroscedasticity? Focusing on various data sources and within-study variability is confusing because each effect size presumable comes from just one land cover data source. Framing this as controlling for heteroscedasticity would help a lot. If that is not your purpose, please edit this paragraph to more clearly explain your approach." I am a bit unsure how should I respond to this reviewer's comment. If I understand correctly, once we define the between and within-study variance/heterogeneity with random variables, we can get the true effects for each observed effect (i.e. each row of the dataset), which then can be used to measure the average true effect. Could someone please let me know whether my interpretation is correct here? or am I missing something?? Thank you for your help. With best wishes, Tharaka
[R-meta] Within-study variance in a multilevel meta-analytic model
1 message · Tharaka S. Priyadarshana