159 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31726881)
1. A Comparison of Fixed-Effects and Random-Effects Models for Multivariate Meta-Analysis Using an SEM Approach.
Cai Z; Fan X
Multivariate Behav Res; 2020; 55(6):839-854. PubMed ID: 31726881
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Assessing meta-regression methods for examining moderator relationships with dependent effect sizes: A Monte Carlo simulation.
López-López JA; Van den Noortgate W; Tanner-Smith EE; Wilson SJ; Lipsey MW
Res Synth Methods; 2017 Dec; 8(4):435-450. PubMed ID: 28556477
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. A Quasi-Likelihood Approach to Assess Model Fit in Quadratic and Interaction SEM.
Büchner RD; Klein AG
Multivariate Behav Res; 2020; 55(6):855-872. PubMed ID: 31825255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Applications of simple and accessible methods for meta-analysis involving rare events: A simulation study.
Hodkinson A; Kontopantelis E
Stat Methods Med Res; 2021 Jul; 30(7):1589-1608. PubMed ID: 34139915
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Alleviating estimation problems in small sample structural equation modeling-A comparison of constrained maximum likelihood, Bayesian estimation, and fixed reliability approaches.
Ulitzsch E; Lüdtke O; Robitzsch A
Psychol Methods; 2023 Jun; 28(3):527-557. PubMed ID: 34928675
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Estimation of an overall standardized mean difference in random-effects meta-analysis if the distribution of random effects departs from normal.
Rubio-Aparicio M; López-López JA; Sánchez-Meca J; Marín-Martínez F; Viechtbauer W; Van den Noortgate W
Res Synth Methods; 2018 Sep; 9(3):489-503. PubMed ID: 29989344
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The Comparison of Latent Variable Propensity Score Models to Traditional Propensity Score Models under Conditions of Covariate Unreliability.
Whittaker TA
Multivariate Behav Res; 2020; 55(4):625-646. PubMed ID: 31530179
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Synthesizing single-case studies: a Monte Carlo examination of a three-level meta-analytic model.
Owens CM; Ferron JM
Behav Res Methods; 2012 Sep; 44(3):795-805. PubMed ID: 22180105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. A demonstration and evaluation of the use of cross-classified random-effects models for meta-analysis.
Fernández-Castilla B; Maes M; Declercq L; Jamshidi L; Beretvas SN; Onghena P; Van den Noortgate W
Behav Res Methods; 2019 Jun; 51(3):1286-1304. PubMed ID: 29873036
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and the estimation of between-study correlation.
Riley RD; Abrams KR; Sutton AJ; Lambert PC; Thompson JR
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2007 Jan; 7():3. PubMed ID: 17222330
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Simulation sample sizes for Monte Carlo partial EVPI calculations.
Oakley JE; Brennan A; Tappenden P; Chilcott J
J Health Econ; 2010 May; 29(3):468-77. PubMed ID: 20378190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Preventing bias from selective non-response in population-based survey studies: findings from a Monte Carlo simulation study.
Gustavson K; Røysamb E; Borren I
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2019 Jun; 19(1):120. PubMed ID: 31195998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A comparative study of the impacts of unbalanced sample sizes on the four synthesized methods of meta-analytic structural equation modeling.
Alamolhoda M; Ayatollahi SMT; Bagheri Z
BMC Res Notes; 2017 Sep; 10(1):446. PubMed ID: 28877742
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: a Monte Carlo comparison of fixed- and random-effects methods.
Field AP
Psychol Methods; 2001 Jun; 6(2):161-80. PubMed ID: 11411440
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The impact of multiple endpoint dependency on Q and I(2) in meta-analysis.
Thompson CG; Becker BJ
Res Synth Methods; 2014 Sep; 5(3):235-53. PubMed ID: 26052849
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Bartlett-type corrections and bootstrap adjustments of likelihood-based inference methods for network meta-analysis.
Noma H; Nagashima K; Maruo K; Gosho M; Furukawa TA
Stat Med; 2018 Mar; 37(7):1178-1190. PubMed ID: 29250816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Neither fixed nor random: weighted least squares meta-regression.
Stanley TD; Doucouliagos H
Res Synth Methods; 2017 Mar; 8(1):19-42. PubMed ID: 27322495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Bootstrap standard error and confidence intervals for the correlations corrected for indirect range restriction.
Li JC; Chan W; Cui Y
Br J Math Stat Psychol; 2011 Nov; 64(3):367-87. PubMed ID: 21973092
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Parameter accuracy in meta-analyses of factor structures.
Gnambs T; Staufenbiel T
Res Synth Methods; 2016 Jun; 7(2):168-86. PubMed ID: 27286902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20.
; ; . PubMed ID:
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
