- Introduction
- More complex 3-level meta-analyses with Bornmann et al.’s (2007) dataset
- Inspecting the data
- Model 0: Intercept
- Model 1:
`Type`

as a covariate - Model 2:
`Year`

and`Year^2`

as covariates - Model 3:
`Discipline`

as a covariate - Model 4:
`Country`

as a covariate - Model 5:
`Type`

and`Discipline`

as covariates - Model 6:
`Type`

and`Country`

as covariates - Model 7:
`Discipline`

and`Country`

as covariates - Model 8:
`Type`

,`Discipline`

and`Country`

as covariates

- Handling missing covariates with FIML
- Implementing three-level meta-analyses as structural equation models in
`OpenMx`

This file illustrates how to conduct three-level meta-analyses using the metaSEM and OpenMx packages available in the R environment. The

`metaSEM`

package was written to simplify the procedures to conduct meta-analysis. Most readers may only need to use the`metaSEM`

package to conduct the analysis. The next section shows how to conduct two- and three-level meta-analyses with the`meta()`

and`meta3()`

functions. The third section demonstrates more complicated three-level meta-analyses using a dataset with more predictors. The final section shows how to implement three-level meta-analyses as structural equation models using the`OpenMx`

package. It provides detailed steps on how three-level meta-analyses can be formulated as structural equation models.This file also demonstrates the advantages of using the SEM approach to conduct three-level meta-analyses. These include flexibility on imposing constraints for model comparisons and construction of likelihood-based confidence interval (LBCI). I also demonstrate how to conduct three-level meta-analysis with restricted (or residual) maximum likelihood (REML) using the

`reml3()`

function and handling missing covariates with full information maximum likelihood (FIML) using the`meta3X()`

function. Readers may refer to Cheung (2015) for the design and implementation of the`metaSEM`

package and Cheung (2014) for the theory and issues on how to formulate three-level meta-analyses as structural equation models.Two datasets from published meta-analyses were used in the illustrations. The first dataset was based on Cooper et al. (2003) and Konstantopoulos (2011). Konstantopoulos (2011) selected part of the dataset to illustrate how to conduct three-level meta-analysis. The second dataset was reported by Bornmann et al. (2007) and Marsh et al. (2009). They conducted a three-level meta-analysis on gender effects in peer reviews of grant proposals.

As an illustration, I first conduct the tradition (two-level) meta-analysis using the `meta()`

function. Then I conduct a three-level meta-analysis using the `meta3()`

function. We may compare the similarities and differences between these two sets of results.

Before running the analyses, we need to load the `metaSEM`

library. The datasets are stored in the library. It is always a good idea to inspect the data before the analyses. We may display the first few cases of the dataset by using the `head()`

command.

```
#### Cooper et al. (2003)
library("metaSEM")
head(Cooper03)
```

```
District Study y v Year
1 11 1 -0.18 0.118 1976
2 11 2 -0.22 0.118 1976
3 11 3 0.23 0.144 1976
4 11 4 -0.30 0.144 1976
5 12 5 0.13 0.014 1989
6 12 6 -0.26 0.014 1989
```

Similar to other `R`

packages, we may use `summary()`

to extract the results after running the analyses. I first conduct a random-effects meta-analysis and then a fixed- and mixed-effects meta-analyses.

- Random-effects model The
*Q*statistic on testing the homogeneity of effect sizes was \(578.86, df = 55, p < .001\). The estimated heterogeneity \(\tau^2\) (labeled`Tau2_1_1`

in the output) and \(I^2\) were 0.0866 and 0.9459, respectively. This indicates that the between-study effect explains about 95% of the total variation. The average population effect (labeled`Intercept1`

in the output; and its 95% Wald CI) was 0.1280 (0.0428, 0.2132).

```
#### Two-level meta-analysis
## Random-effects model
summary( meta(y=y, v=v, data=Cooper03) )
```

```
Call:
meta(y = y, v = v, data = Cooper03)
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Intercept1 0.128003 0.043472 0.042799 0.213207 2.9445 0.003235 **
Tau2_1_1 0.086537 0.019485 0.048346 0.124728 4.4411 8.949e-06 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 578.864
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 55
P value of the Q statistic: 0
Heterogeneity indices (based on the estimated Tau2):
Estimate
Intercept1: I2 (Q statistic) 0.9459
Number of studies (or clusters): 56
Number of observed statistics: 56
Number of estimated parameters: 2
Degrees of freedom: 54
-2 log likelihood: 33.2919
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

- Fixed-effects model A fixed-effects meta-analysis can be conducted by fixing the heterogeneity of the random effects at 0 with the
`RE.constraints`

argument (random-effects constraints). The estimated common effect (and its 95% Wald CI) was 0.0464 (0.0284, 0.0644).

```
## Fixed-effects model
summary( meta(y=y, v=v, data=Cooper03, RE.constraints=0) )
```

```
Call:
meta(y = y, v = v, data = Cooper03, RE.constraints = 0)
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Intercept1 0.0464072 0.0091897 0.0283957 0.0644186 5.0499 4.42e-07 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 578.864
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 55
P value of the Q statistic: 0
Heterogeneity indices (based on the estimated Tau2):
Estimate
Intercept1: I2 (Q statistic) 0
Number of studies (or clusters): 56
Number of observed statistics: 56
Number of estimated parameters: 1
Degrees of freedom: 55
-2 log likelihood: 434.2075
OpenMx status1: 1 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

- Mixed-effects model
`Year`

was used as a covariate. It is easier to interpret the intercept by centering the`Year`

with`scale(Year, scale=FALSE)`

. The`scale=FALSE`

argument means that it is centered, but not standardized. The estimated regression coefficient (labeled`Slope1_1`

in the output; and its 95% Wald CI) was 0.0051 (-0.0033, 0.0136) which is not significant at \(\alpha=.05\). The \(R^2\) is 0.0164.

```
## Mixed-effects model
summary( meta(y=y, v=v, x=scale(Year, scale=FALSE), data=Cooper03) )
```

```
Call:
meta(y = y, v = v, x = scale(Year, scale = FALSE), data = Cooper03)
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Intercept1 0.1259125 0.0432028 0.0412367 0.2105884 2.9145 0.003563
Slope1_1 0.0051307 0.0043248 -0.0033457 0.0136071 1.1864 0.235483
Tau2_1_1 0.0851153 0.0190462 0.0477856 0.1224451 4.4689 7.862e-06
Intercept1 **
Slope1_1
Tau2_1_1 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 578.864
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 55
P value of the Q statistic: 0
Explained variances (R2):
y1
Tau2 (no predictor) 0.0865
Tau2 (with predictors) 0.0851
R2 0.0164
Number of studies (or clusters): 56
Number of observed statistics: 56
Number of estimated parameters: 3
Degrees of freedom: 53
-2 log likelihood: 31.88635
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

- Random-effects model The
*Q*statistic on testing the homogeneity of effect sizes was the same as that under the two-level meta-analysis. The estimated heterogeneity at level 2 \(\tau^2_{(2)}\) (labeled`Tau2_2`

in the output) and at level 3 \(\tau^2_{(3)}\) (labeled`Tau2_3`

in the output) were 0.0329 and 0.0577, respectively. The level 2 \(I^2_{(2)}\) (labeled`I2_2`

in the output) and the level 3 \(I^2_{(3)}\) (labeled`I2_3`

in the output) were 0.3440 and 0.6043, respectively. Schools (level 2) and districts (level 3) explain about 34% and 60% of the total variation, respectively. The average population effect (and its 95% Wald CI) was 0.1845 (0.0266, 0.3423).

```
#### Three-level meta-analysis
## Random-effects model
summary( meta3(y=y, v=v, cluster=District, data=Cooper03) )
```

```
Call:
meta3(y = y, v = v, cluster = District, data = Cooper03)
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Intercept 0.1844554 0.0805411 0.0265977 0.3423130 2.2902 0.022010 *
Tau2_2 0.0328648 0.0111397 0.0110314 0.0546982 2.9502 0.003175 **
Tau2_3 0.0577384 0.0307423 -0.0025154 0.1179921 1.8781 0.060362 .
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 578.864
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 55
P value of the Q statistic: 0
Heterogeneity indices (based on the estimated Tau2):
Estimate
I2_2 (Typical v: Q statistic) 0.3440
I2_3 (Typical v: Q statistic) 0.6043
Number of studies (or clusters): 11
Number of observed statistics: 56
Number of estimated parameters: 3
Degrees of freedom: 53
-2 log likelihood: 16.78987
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

- Mixed-effects model
`Year`

was used as a covariate. The estimated regression coefficient (labeled`Slope_1`

in the output; and its 95% Wald CI) was 0.0051 (-0.0116, 0.0218) which is not significant at \(\alpha=.05\). The estimated level 2 \(R^2_{(2)}\) and level 3 \(R^2_{(3)}\) were 0.0000 and 0.0221, respectively.

```
## Mixed-effects model
summary( meta3(y=y, v=v, cluster=District, x=scale(Year, scale=FALSE),
data=Cooper03) )
```

```
Call:
meta3(y = y, v = v, cluster = District, x = scale(Year, scale = FALSE),
data = Cooper03)
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Intercept 0.1780268 0.0805219 0.0202067 0.3358469 2.2109 0.027042 *
Slope_1 0.0050737 0.0085266 -0.0116382 0.0217856 0.5950 0.551814
Tau2_2 0.0329390 0.0111620 0.0110618 0.0548162 2.9510 0.003168 **
Tau2_3 0.0564628 0.0300330 -0.0024007 0.1153264 1.8800 0.060104 .
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 578.864
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 55
P value of the Q statistic: 0
Explained variances (R2):
Level 2 Level 3
Tau2 (no predictor) 0.032865 0.0577
Tau2 (with predictors) 0.032939 0.0565
R2 0.000000 0.0221
Number of studies (or clusters): 11
Number of observed statistics: 56
Number of estimated parameters: 4
Degrees of freedom: 52
-2 log likelihood: 16.43629
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

Model comparisons Many research hypotheses involve model comparisons among nested models.

`anova()`

, a generic function to comparing nested models, may be used to conduct a likelihood ratio test which is also known as a chi-square difference test.- Testing \(H_0: \tau^2_{(3)} = 0\)
- Based on the data structure, it is clear that a 3-level meta-analysis is preferred to a traditional 2-level meta-analysis. It is still of interest to test whether the 3-level model is statistically better than the 2-level model by testing \(H_0: \tau^2_{(3)}=0\). Since the models with \(\tau^2_{(3)}\) being freely estimated and with \(\tau^2_{(3)}=0\) are nested, we may compare them by the use of a likelihood ratio test.
- It should be noted, however, that \(H_0: \tau^2_{(3)}=0\) is tested on the boundary. The likelihood ratio test is not distributed as a chi-square variate with 1
*df*. A simple strategy to correct this bias is to reject the null hypothesis when the observed*p*value is larger than .10 for \(\alpha=.05\). - The likelihood-ratio test was 16.5020 (
*df*=1),*p*< .001. This clearly demonstrates that the three-level model is statistically better than the two-level model.

```
## Model comparisons
model2 <- meta(y=y, v=v, data=Cooper03, model.name="2 level model", silent=TRUE)
#### An equivalent model by fixing tau2 at level 3=0 in meta3()
## model2 <- meta3(y=y, v=v, cluster=District, data=Cooper03,
## model.name="2 level model", RE3.constraints=0)
model3 <- meta3(y=y, v=v, cluster=District, data=Cooper03,
model.name="3 level model", silent=TRUE)
anova(model3, model2)
```

```
base comparison ep minus2LL df AIC diffLL diffdf
1 3 level model <NA> 3 16.78987 53 -89.21013 NA NA
2 3 level model 2 level model 2 33.29190 54 -74.70810 16.50203 1
p
1 NA
2 4.859793e-05
```

- Testing \(H_0: \tau^2_{(2)} = \tau^2_{(3)}\)
- From the results of the 3-level random-effects meta-analysis, it appears the level 3 heterogeneity is much larger than that at level 2.
- We may test the null hypothesis \(H_0: \tau^2_{(2)} = \tau^2_{(3)}\) by the use of a likelihood-ratio test.
- We may impose an equality constraint on \(\tau^2_{(2)} = \tau^2_{(3)}\) by using the same label in
`meta3()`

. For example,`Eq_tau2`

is used as the label in`RE2.constraints`

and`RE3.constraints`

meaning that both the level 2 and level 3 random effects heterogeneity variances are constrained equally. The value of`0.1`

was used as the starting value in the constraints. - The likelihood-ratio test was 0.6871 (
*df*= 1),*p*= 0.4072. This indicates that there is not enough evidence to reject \(H_0: \tau^2_2=\tau^2_3\).

```
## Testing \tau^2_2 = \tau^2_3
modelEqTau2 <- meta3(y=y, v=v, cluster=District, data=Cooper03,
model.name="Equal tau2 at both levels",
RE2.constraints="0.1*Eq_tau2", RE3.constraints="0.1*Eq_tau2")
anova(model3, modelEqTau2)
```

```
base comparison ep minus2LL df AIC
1 3 level model <NA> 3 16.78987 53 -89.21013
2 3 level model Equal tau2 at both levels 2 17.47697 54 -90.52303
diffLL diffdf p
1 NA NA NA
2 0.6870959 1 0.4071539
```

- Likelihood-based confidence interval
- A Wald CI is constructed by \(\hat{\theta} \pm 1.96 SE\) where \(\hat{\theta}\) and \(SE\) are the parameter estimate and its estimated standard error.
- A LBCI can be constructed by the use of the likelihood ratio statistic (e.g., Cheung, 2009; Neal & Miller, 1997).
- It is well known that the performance of Wald CI on variance components is very poor. For example, the 95% Wald CI on \(\hat{\tau}^2_{(3)}\) in the three-level random-effects meta-analysis was (-0.0025, 0.1180). The lower bound falls outside 0.
- A LBCI on the heterogeneity variance is preferred. Since \(I^2_{(2)}\) and \(I^2_{(3)}\) are functions of \(\tau^2_{(2)}\) and \(\tau^2_{(3)}\), LBCI on these indices may also be requested and used to indicate the precision of these indices.
- LBCI may be requested by specifying
`LB`

in the`intervals.type`

argument. - The 95% LBCI on \(\hat{\tau}^2_{(3)}\) is (0.0198, 0.1763) that stay inside the meaningful boundaries. Regarding the \(I^2\), the 95% LBCIs on \(I^2_{(2)}\) and \(I^2_{(3)}\) were (0.1274, 0.6573) and (0.2794, 0.8454), respectively.

```
## LBCI for random-effects model
summary( meta3(y=y, v=v, cluster=District, data=Cooper03,
I2=c("I2q", "ICC"), intervals.type="LB") )
```

```
Call:
meta3(y = y, v = v, cluster = District, data = Cooper03, intervals.type = "LB",
I2 = c("I2q", "ICC"))
95% confidence intervals: Likelihood-based statistic
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Intercept 0.184455 NA 0.011668 0.358535 NA NA
Tau2_2 0.032865 NA 0.016330 0.063126 NA NA
Tau2_3 0.057738 NA 0.019805 0.176328 NA NA
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 578.864
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 55
P value of the Q statistic: 0
Heterogeneity indices (I2) and their 95% likelihood-based CIs:
lbound Estimate ubound
I2_2 (Typical v: Q statistic) 0.12736 0.34396 0.6573
ICC_2 (tau^2/(tau^2+tau^3)) 0.13102 0.36273 0.7015
I2_3 (Typical v: Q statistic) 0.27937 0.60429 0.8454
ICC_3 (tau^3/(tau^2+tau^3)) 0.29847 0.63727 0.8690
Number of studies (or clusters): 11
Number of observed statistics: 56
Number of estimated parameters: 3
Degrees of freedom: 53
-2 log likelihood: 16.78987
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

```
## LBCI for mixed-effects model
summary( meta3(y=y, v=v, cluster=District, x=scale(Year, scale=FALSE),
data=Cooper03, intervals.type="LB") )
```

```
Call:
meta3(y = y, v = v, cluster = District, x = scale(Year, scale = FALSE),
data = Cooper03, intervals.type = "LB")
95% confidence intervals: Likelihood-based statistic
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Intercept 0.1780268 NA 0.0052929 0.3515622 NA NA
Slope_1 0.0050737 NA -0.0128356 0.0237979 NA NA
Tau2_2 0.0329390 NA 0.0163732 0.0632779 NA NA
Tau2_3 0.0564628 NA 0.0192314 0.1720022 NA NA
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 578.864
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 55
P value of the Q statistic: 0
Explained variances (R2):
Level 2 Level 3
Tau2 (no predictor) 0.032865 0.0577
Tau2 (with predictors) 0.032939 0.0565
R2 0.000000 0.0221
Number of studies (or clusters): 11
Number of observed statistics: 56
Number of estimated parameters: 4
Degrees of freedom: 52
-2 log likelihood: 16.43629
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

- Restricted maximum likelihood estimation
- REML may also be used in three-level meta-analysis. The parameter estimates for \(\tau^2_{(2)}\) and \(\tau^2_{(3)}\) were 0.0327 and 0.0651, respectively.

```
## REML
summary( reml1 <- reml3(y=y, v=v, cluster=District, data=Cooper03) )
```

```
Call:
reml3(y = y, v = v, cluster = District, data = Cooper03)
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Tau2_2 0.0327365 0.0110922 0.0109963 0.0544768 2.9513 0.003164 **
Tau2_3 0.0650619 0.0355102 -0.0045368 0.1346607 1.8322 0.066921 .
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Number of studies (or clusters): 56
Number of observed statistics: 55
Number of estimated parameters: 2
Degrees of freedom: 53
-2 log likelihood: -81.14044
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

- We may impose an equality constraint on \(\tau^2_{(2)}\) and \(\tau^2_{(3)}\) and test whether this constraint is statistically significant. The estimated value for \(\tau^2_{(2)}=\tau^2_{(3)}\) was 0.0404. When this model is compared against the unconstrained model, the test statistic was 1.0033 (
*df*= 1),*p*= .3165, which is not significant.

```
summary( reml0 <- reml3(y=y, v=v, cluster=District, data=Cooper03,
RE.equal=TRUE, model.name="Equal Tau2") )
```

```
Call:
reml3(y = y, v = v, cluster = District, data = Cooper03, RE.equal = TRUE,
model.name = "Equal Tau2")
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Tau2 0.040418 0.010290 0.020249 0.060587 3.9277 8.576e-05 ***
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Number of studies (or clusters): 56
Number of observed statistics: 55
Number of estimated parameters: 1
Degrees of freedom: 54
-2 log likelihood: -80.1371
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

`anova(reml1, reml0)`

```
base comparison ep minus2LL df AIC diffLL
1 Variance component with REML <NA> 2 -81.14044 -2 NA NA
2 Variance component with REML Equal Tau2 1 -80.13710 -1 NA 1.003336
diffdf p
1 NA NA
2 1 0.3165046
```

- We may also estimate the residual heterogeneity after controlling for the covariate. The estimated residual heterogeneity for \(\tau^2_{(2)}\) and \(\tau^2_{(3)}\) were 0.0327 and 0.0723, respectively.

```
summary( reml3(y=y, v=v, cluster=District, x=scale(Year, scale=FALSE),
data=Cooper03) )
```

```
Call:
reml3(y = y, v = v, cluster = District, x = scale(Year, scale = FALSE),
data = Cooper03)
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Tau2_2 0.0326502 0.0110529 0.0109870 0.0543134 2.9540 0.003137 **
Tau2_3 0.0722656 0.0405349 -0.0071813 0.1517125 1.7828 0.074619 .
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Number of studies (or clusters): 56
Number of observed statistics: 54
Number of estimated parameters: 2
Degrees of freedom: 52
-2 log likelihood: -72.09405
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

This section replicates the findings in Table 3 of Marsh et al. (2009). Several additional analyses on model comparisons were conducted. Missing data were artificially introduced to illustrate how missing data might be handled with FIML.

The effect size and its sampling variance are `logOR`

(log of the odds ratio) and `v`

, respectively. `Cluster`

is the variable representing the cluster effect, whereas the potential covariates are `Year`

(year of publication), `Type`

(`Grants`

vs. `Fellowship`

), `Discipline`

(`Physical sciences`

, `Life sciences/biology`

, `Social sciences/humanities`

and `Multidisciplinary`

) and `Country`

(`United States`

, `Canada`

, `Australia`

, `United Kingdom`

and `Europe`

).

```
#### Bornmann et al. (2007)
head(Bornmann07)
```

```
Id Study Cluster logOR v Year
1 1 Ackers (2000a; Marie Curie) 1 -0.40108 0.01391692 1996
2 2 Ackers (2000b; Marie Curie) 1 -0.05727 0.03428793 1996
3 3 Ackers (2000c; Marie Curie) 1 -0.29852 0.03391122 1996
4 4 Ackers (2000d; Marie Curie) 1 0.36094 0.03404025 1996
5 5 Ackers (2000e; Marie Curie) 1 -0.33336 0.01282103 1996
6 6 Ackers (2000f; Marie Curie) 1 -0.07173 0.01361189 1996
Type Discipline Country
1 Fellowship Physical sciences Europe
2 Fellowship Physical sciences Europe
3 Fellowship Physical sciences Europe
4 Fellowship Physical sciences Europe
5 Fellowship Social sciences/humanities Europe
6 Fellowship Physical sciences Europe
```

The *Q* statistic was 221.2809 (*df* = 65), *p* < .001. The estimated average effect (and its 95% Wald CI) was -0.1008 (-0.1794, -0.0221). The \(\hat{\tau}^2_{(2)}\) and \(\hat{\tau}^3_{(3)}\) were 0.0038 and 0.0141, respectively. The \(I^2_{(2)}\) and \(I^2_{(3)}\) were 0.1568 and 0.5839, respectively.

```
## Model 0: Intercept
summary( Model0 <- meta3(y=logOR, v=v, cluster=Cluster, data=Bornmann07,
model.name="3 level model") )
```

```
Call:
meta3(y = logOR, v = v, cluster = Cluster, data = Bornmann07,
model.name = "3 level model")
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Intercept -0.1007784 0.0401327 -0.1794370 -0.0221198 -2.5111 0.01203 *
Tau2_2 0.0037965 0.0027210 -0.0015367 0.0091297 1.3952 0.16295
Tau2_3 0.0141352 0.0091445 -0.0037877 0.0320580 1.5458 0.12216
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 221.2809
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 65
P value of the Q statistic: 0
Heterogeneity indices (based on the estimated Tau2):
Estimate
I2_2 (Typical v: Q statistic) 0.1568
I2_3 (Typical v: Q statistic) 0.5839
Number of studies (or clusters): 21
Number of observed statistics: 66
Number of estimated parameters: 3
Degrees of freedom: 63
-2 log likelihood: 25.80256
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

- Testing \(H_0: \tau^2_3 = 0\) We may test whether the three-level model is necessary by testing \(H_0: \tau^2_{(3)} = 0\). The likelihood ratio statistic was 10.2202 (
*df*= 1),*p*< .01. Thus, the three-level model is statistically better than the two-level model.

```
## Testing tau^2_3 = 0
Model0a <- meta3(logOR, v, cluster=Cluster, data=Bornmann07,
RE3.constraints=0, model.name="2 level model")
anova(Model0, Model0a)
```

```
base comparison ep minus2LL df AIC diffLL diffdf
1 3 level model <NA> 3 25.80256 63 -100.19744 NA NA
2 3 level model 2 level model 2 36.02279 64 -91.97721 10.22024 1
p
1 NA
2 0.001389081
```

- Testing \(H_0: \tau^2_2 = \tau^2_3\) The likelihood-ratio statistic in testing \(H_0: \tau^2_{(2)} = \tau^2_{(3)}\) was 1.3591 (
*df*= 1),*p*= 0.2437. Thus, there is no evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

```
## Testing tau^2_2 = tau^2_3
Model0b <- meta3(logOR, v, cluster=Cluster, data=Bornmann07,
RE2.constraints="0.1*Eq_tau2", RE3.constraints="0.1*Eq_tau2",
model.name="tau2_2 equals tau2_3")
anova(Model0, Model0b)
```

```
base comparison ep minus2LL df AIC diffLL
1 3 level model <NA> 3 25.80256 63 -100.1974 NA
2 3 level model tau2_2 equals tau2_3 2 27.16166 64 -100.8383 1.359103
diffdf p
1 NA NA
2 1 0.243693
```

`Type`

as a covariate- Conventionally, one level (e.g.,
`Grants`

) is used as the reference group. The estimated intercept (labeled`Intercept`

in the output) represents the estimated effect size for`Grants`

and the regression coefficient (labeled`Slope_1`

in the output) is the difference between`Fellowship`

and`Grants`

.- The estimated slope on
`Type`

(and its 95% Wald CI) was -0.1956 (-0.3018, -0.0894) which is statistically significant at \(\alpha=.05\). This is the difference between`Fellowship`

and`Grants`

. The \(R^2_{(2)}\) and \(R^2_{(3)}\) were 0.0693 and 0.7943, respectively.

- The estimated slope on

```
## Model 1: Type as a covariate
## Convert characters into a dummy variable
## Type2=0 (Grants); Type2=1 (Fellowship)
Type2 <- ifelse(Bornmann07$Type=="Fellowship", yes=1, no=0)
summary( Model1 <- meta3(logOR, v, x=Type2, cluster=Cluster, data=Bornmann07))
```

```
Call:
meta3(y = logOR, v = v, cluster = Cluster, x = Type2, data = Bornmann07)
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Intercept -0.0066071 0.0371125 -0.0793462 0.0661320 -0.1780 0.8587001
Slope_1 -0.1955869 0.0541649 -0.3017483 -0.0894256 -3.6110 0.0003051
Tau2_2 0.0035335 0.0024306 -0.0012303 0.0082974 1.4538 0.1460058
Tau2_3 0.0029079 0.0031183 -0.0032039 0.0090197 0.9325 0.3510704
Intercept
Slope_1 ***
Tau2_2
Tau2_3
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 221.2809
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 65
P value of the Q statistic: 0
Explained variances (R2):
Level 2 Level 3
Tau2 (no predictor) 0.0037965 0.0141
Tau2 (with predictors) 0.0035335 0.0029
R2 0.0692595 0.7943
Number of studies (or clusters): 21
Number of observed statistics: 66
Number of estimated parameters: 4
Degrees of freedom: 62
-2 log likelihood: 17.62569
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

- Alternative model:
`Grants`

and`Fellowship`

as indicator variables- If we want to estimate the effects for both
`Grants`

and`Fellowship`

, we may create two indicator variables to represent them. Since we cannot estimate the intercept and these coefficients at the same time, we need to fix the intercept at 0 by specifying the`intercept.constraints=0`

argument in`meta3()`

. We are now able to include both`Grants`

and`Fellowship`

in the analysis. The estimated effects (and their 95% CIs) for`Grants`

and`Fellowship`

were -0.0066 (-0.0793, 0.0661) and -0.2022 (-0.2805, -0.1239), respectively.

- If we want to estimate the effects for both

```
## Alternative model: Grants and Fellowship as indicators
## Indicator variables
Grants <- ifelse(Bornmann07$Type=="Grants", yes=1, no=0)
Fellowship <- ifelse(Bornmann07$Type=="Fellowship", yes=1, no=0)
summary(Model1b <- meta3(logOR, v, x=cbind(Grants, Fellowship),
cluster=Cluster, data=Bornmann07,
intercept.constraints=0, model.name="Model 1"))
```

```
Call:
meta3(y = logOR, v = v, cluster = Cluster, x = cbind(Grants,
Fellowship), data = Bornmann07, intercept.constraints = 0,
model.name = "Model 1")
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Slope_1 0.10000000 NA NA NA NA NA
Slope_2 -0.20209280 0.03954426 -0.27959812 -0.12458747 -5.1105 3.212e-07
Tau2_2 0.00357518 0.00187968 -0.00010892 0.00725929 1.9020 0.05717
Tau2_3 0.00271391 0.00128338 0.00019853 0.00522929 2.1147 0.03446
Slope_1
Slope_2 ***
Tau2_2 .
Tau2_3 *
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 221.2809
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 65
P value of the Q statistic: 0
Explained variances (R2):
Level 2 Level 3
Tau2 (no predictor) 0.0037965 0.0141
Tau2 (with predictors) 0.0035752 0.0027
R2 0.0582930 0.8080
Number of studies (or clusters): 21
Number of observed statistics: 66
Number of estimated parameters: 4
Degrees of freedom: 62
-2 log likelihood: 17.65814
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

`Year`

and `Year^2`

as covariates- When there are several covariates, we may combine them with the
`cbind()`

command. For example,`cbind(Year, Year^2)`

includes both`Year`

and its squared as covariates. In the output,`Slope_1`

and`Slope_2`

refer to the regression coefficients for`Year`

and`Year^2`

, respectively. To increase the numerical stability, the covariates are usually centered before creating the quadratic terms. Since Marsh et al. (2009) standardized`Year`

in their analysis, I follow this practice here. - The estimated regression coefficients (and their 95% CIs) for =Year= and =Year^2= were -0.0010 (-0.0473, 0.0454) and -0.0118 (-0.0247, 0.0012), respectively. The \(R^2_{(2)}\) and \(R^2_{(3)}\) were 0.2430 and 0.0000, respectively.

```
## Model 2: Year and Year^2 as covariates
summary( Model2 <- meta3(logOR, v, x=cbind(scale(Year), scale(Year)^2),
cluster=Cluster, data=Bornmann07,
model.name="Model 2") )
```

```
Call:
meta3(y = logOR, v = v, cluster = Cluster, x = cbind(scale(Year),
scale(Year)^2), data = Bornmann07, model.name = "Model 2")
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Intercept -0.08627312 0.04125581 -0.16713302 -0.00541322 -2.0912 0.03651
Slope_1 -0.00095287 0.02365224 -0.04731040 0.04540467 -0.0403 0.96786
Slope_2 -0.01176840 0.00659995 -0.02470407 0.00116727 -1.7831 0.07457
Tau2_2 0.00287389 0.00206817 -0.00117965 0.00692744 1.3896 0.16466
Tau2_3 0.01479446 0.00926095 -0.00335666 0.03294558 1.5975 0.11015
Intercept *
Slope_1
Slope_2 .
Tau2_2
Tau2_3
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 221.2809
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 65
P value of the Q statistic: 0
Explained variances (R2):
Level 2 Level 3
Tau2 (no predictor) 0.0037965 0.0141
Tau2 (with predictors) 0.0028739 0.0148
R2 0.2430133 0.0000
Number of studies (or clusters): 21
Number of observed statistics: 66
Number of estimated parameters: 5
Degrees of freedom: 61
-2 log likelihood: 22.3836
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

- Testing \(H_0: \beta_{Year} = \beta_{Year^2}=0\) The test statistic was 3.4190 (
*df*= 2),*p*= 0.1810. Thus, there is no evidence supporting that =Year= has a quadratic effect on the effect size.

```
## Testing beta_{Year} = beta_{Year^2}=0
anova(Model2, Model0)
```

```
base comparison ep minus2LL df AIC diffLL diffdf p
1 Model 2 <NA> 5 22.38360 61 -99.6164 NA NA NA
2 Model 2 3 level model 3 25.80256 63 -100.1974 3.418955 2 0.1809603
```

`Discipline`

as a covariate- There are four categories in
`Discipline`

.`multidisciplinary`

is used as the reference group in the analysis. - The estimated regression coefficients (and their 95% Wald CIs) for
`DisciplinePhy`

,`DisciplineLife`

and`DisciplineSoc`

were -0.0091 (-0.2041, 0.1859), -0.1262 (-0.2804, 0.0280) and -0.2370 (-0.4746, 0.0007), respectively. The \(R^2_2\) and \(R^2_3\) were 0.0000 and 0.4975, respectively.

```
## Model 3: Discipline as a covariate
## Create dummy variables using multidisciplinary as the reference group
DisciplinePhy <- ifelse(Bornmann07$Discipline=="Physical sciences", yes=1, no=0)
DisciplineLife <- ifelse(Bornmann07$Discipline=="Life sciences/biology", yes=1, no=0)
DisciplineSoc <- ifelse(Bornmann07$Discipline=="Social sciences/humanities", yes=1, no=0)
summary( Model3 <- meta3(logOR, v, x=cbind(DisciplinePhy, DisciplineLife, DisciplineSoc),
cluster=Cluster, data=Bornmann07,
model.name="Model 3") )
```

```
Call:
meta3(y = logOR, v = v, cluster = Cluster, x = cbind(DisciplinePhy,
DisciplineLife, DisciplineSoc), data = Bornmann07, model.name = "Model 3")
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Intercept -0.01474783 0.06389946 -0.13998848 0.11049281 -0.2308 0.81747
Slope_1 -0.00913064 0.09949200 -0.20413137 0.18587009 -0.0918 0.92688
Slope_2 -0.12617957 0.07866275 -0.28035572 0.02799657 -1.6041 0.10870
Slope_3 -0.23695697 0.12123093 -0.47456522 0.00065127 -1.9546 0.05063
Tau2_2 0.00390942 0.00283948 -0.00165587 0.00947471 1.3768 0.16857
Tau2_3 0.00710338 0.00643210 -0.00550331 0.01971006 1.1044 0.26944
Intercept
Slope_1
Slope_2
Slope_3 .
Tau2_2
Tau2_3
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 221.2809
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 65
P value of the Q statistic: 0
Explained variances (R2):
Level 2 Level 3
Tau2 (no predictor) 0.0037965 0.0141
Tau2 (with predictors) 0.0039094 0.0071
R2 0.0000000 0.4975
Number of studies (or clusters): 21
Number of observed statistics: 66
Number of estimated parameters: 6
Degrees of freedom: 60
-2 log likelihood: 20.07571
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

- Testing whether
`Discipline`

is significant- The test statistic was 5.7268 (
*df*= 3),*p*= 0.1257 which is not significant. Therefore, there is no evidence supporting that =Discipline= explains the variation of the effect sizes.

- The test statistic was 5.7268 (

```
## Testing whether Discipline is significant
anova(Model3, Model0)
```

```
base comparison ep minus2LL df AIC diffLL diffdf
1 Model 3 <NA> 6 20.07571 60 -99.92429 NA NA
2 Model 3 3 level model 3 25.80256 63 -100.19744 5.726842 3
p
1 NA
2 0.1256832
```

`Country`

as a covariate- There are five categories in
`Country`

.`United States`

is used as the reference group in the analysis. - The estimated regression coefficients (and their 95% Wald CIs) for
`CountryAus`

,`CountryCan`

,`CountryEur`

, and`CountryUK`

are -0.0240 (-0.2405, 0.1924), -0.1341 (-0.3674, 0.0993), -0.2211 (-0.3660, -0.0762) and 0.0537 (-0.1413, 0.2487), respectively. The \(R^2_2\) and \(R^2_3\) were 0.1209 and 0.6606, respectively.

```
## Model 4: Country as a covariate
## Create dummy variables using the United States as the reference group
CountryAus <- ifelse(Bornmann07$Country=="Australia", yes=1, no=0)
CountryCan <- ifelse(Bornmann07$Country=="Canada", yes=1, no=0)
CountryEur <- ifelse(Bornmann07$Country=="Europe", yes=1, no=0)
CountryUK <- ifelse(Bornmann07$Country=="United Kingdom", yes=1, no=0)
summary( Model4 <- meta3(logOR, v, x=cbind(CountryAus, CountryCan, CountryEur,
CountryUK), cluster=Cluster, data=Bornmann07,
model.name="Model 4") )
```

```
Call:
meta3(y = logOR, v = v, cluster = Cluster, x = cbind(CountryAus,
CountryCan, CountryEur, CountryUK), data = Bornmann07, model.name = "Model 4")
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Intercept 0.0025681 0.0597768 -0.1145923 0.1197285 0.0430 0.965732
Slope_1 -0.0240109 0.1104328 -0.2404552 0.1924333 -0.2174 0.827876
Slope_2 -0.1340800 0.1190668 -0.3674465 0.0992866 -1.1261 0.260127
Slope_3 -0.2210801 0.0739174 -0.3659556 -0.0762046 -2.9909 0.002782 **
Slope_4 0.0537251 0.0994803 -0.1412527 0.2487030 0.5401 0.589157
Tau2_2 0.0033376 0.0023492 -0.0012667 0.0079420 1.4208 0.155383
Tau2_3 0.0047979 0.0044818 -0.0039862 0.0135820 1.0705 0.284379
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 221.2809
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 65
P value of the Q statistic: 0
Explained variances (R2):
Level 2 Level 3
Tau2 (no predictor) 0.0037965 0.0141
Tau2 (with predictors) 0.0033376 0.0048
R2 0.1208598 0.6606
Number of studies (or clusters): 21
Number of observed statistics: 66
Number of estimated parameters: 7
Degrees of freedom: 59
-2 log likelihood: 14.18259
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

- Testing whether
`Discipline`

is significant- The test statistic was 11.6200 (
*df*= 4),*p*= 0.0204 which is statistically significant.

- The test statistic was 11.6200 (

```
## Testing whether Discipline is significant
anova(Model4, Model0)
```

```
base comparison ep minus2LL df AIC diffLL diffdf
1 Model 4 <NA> 7 14.18259 59 -103.8174 NA NA
2 Model 4 3 level model 3 25.80256 63 -100.1974 11.61996 4
p
1 NA
2 0.02041284
```

`Type`

and `Discipline`

as covariates- The \(R^2_{(2)}\) and \(R^2_{(3)}\) were 0.3925 and 1.0000, respectively. The \(\hat{\tau}^2_{(3)}\) was near 0 after controlling for the covariates.

```
## Model 5: Type and Discipline as covariates
summary( Model5 <- meta3(logOR, v, x=cbind(Type2, DisciplinePhy, DisciplineLife,
DisciplineSoc), cluster=Cluster, data=Bornmann07,
model.name="Model 5") )
```

```
Call:
meta3(y = logOR, v = v, cluster = Cluster, x = cbind(Type2, DisciplinePhy,
DisciplineLife, DisciplineSoc), data = Bornmann07, model.name = "Model 5")
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value
Intercept 6.7036e-02 1.8553e-02 3.0672e-02 1.0340e-01 3.6132
Slope_1 -1.9004e-01 4.0234e-02 -2.6890e-01 -1.1118e-01 -4.7233
Slope_2 1.9511e-02 6.5942e-02 -1.0973e-01 1.4875e-01 0.2959
Slope_3 -1.2779e-01 3.5914e-02 -1.9818e-01 -5.7400e-02 -3.5582
Slope_4 -2.3950e-01 9.4054e-02 -4.2384e-01 -5.5154e-02 -2.5464
Tau2_2 2.3062e-03 1.4270e-03 -4.9059e-04 5.1030e-03 1.6162
Tau2_3 1.0000e-10 NA NA NA NA
Pr(>|z|)
Intercept 0.0003025 ***
Slope_1 2.32e-06 ***
Slope_2 0.7673209
Slope_3 0.0003734 ***
Slope_4 0.0108849 *
Tau2_2 0.1060586
Tau2_3 NA
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 221.2809
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 65
P value of the Q statistic: 0
Explained variances (R2):
Level 2 Level 3
Tau2 (no predictor) 0.0037965 0.0141
Tau2 (with predictors) 0.0023062 0.0000
R2 0.3925434 1.0000
Number of studies (or clusters): 21
Number of observed statistics: 66
Number of estimated parameters: 7
Degrees of freedom: 59
-2 log likelihood: 4.66727
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

- Testing whether
`Discipline`

is significant after controlling for`Type`

- The test statistic was 12.9584 (
*df*= 3),*p*= 0.0047 which is significant. Therefore,`Discipline`

is still significant after controlling for`Type`

.

- The test statistic was 12.9584 (

```
## Testing whether Discipline is significant after controlling for Type
anova(Model5, Model1)
```

```
base comparison ep minus2LL df AIC diffLL diffdf
1 Model 5 <NA> 7 4.66727 59 -113.3327 NA NA
2 Model 5 Meta analysis with ML 4 17.62569 62 -106.3743 12.95842 3
p
1 NA
2 0.004727388
```

`Type`

and `Country`

as covariates- The \(R^2_{(2)}\) and \(R^2_{(3)}\) were 0.3948 and 1.0000, respectively. The \(\hat{\tau}^2_{(3)}\) was near 0 after controlling for the covariates.

```
## Model 6: Type and Country as covariates
summary( Model6 <- meta3(logOR, v, x=cbind(Type2, CountryAus, CountryCan,
CountryEur, CountryUK), cluster=Cluster, data=Bornmann07,
model.name="Model 6") )
```

```
Call:
meta3(y = logOR, v = v, cluster = Cluster, x = cbind(Type2, CountryAus,
CountryCan, CountryEur, CountryUK), data = Bornmann07, model.name = "Model 6")
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value
Intercept 6.7507e-02 1.8933e-02 3.0399e-02 1.0461e-01 3.5656
Slope_1 -1.5167e-01 4.1113e-02 -2.3225e-01 -7.1092e-02 -3.6892
Slope_2 -6.9580e-02 8.5164e-02 -2.3650e-01 9.7339e-02 -0.8170
Slope_3 -1.4231e-01 7.5204e-02 -2.8970e-01 5.0878e-03 -1.8923
Slope_4 -1.6116e-01 4.0203e-02 -2.3995e-01 -8.2361e-02 -4.0086
Slope_5 9.0419e-03 7.0074e-02 -1.2830e-01 1.4639e-01 0.1290
Tau2_2 2.2976e-03 1.4407e-03 -5.2618e-04 5.1213e-03 1.5947
Tau2_3 1.0000e-10 NA NA NA NA
Pr(>|z|)
Intercept 0.0003631 ***
Slope_1 0.0002250 ***
Slope_2 0.4139266
Slope_3 0.0584497 .
Slope_4 6.108e-05 ***
Slope_5 0.8973315
Tau2_2 0.1107693
Tau2_3 NA
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 221.2809
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 65
P value of the Q statistic: 0
Explained variances (R2):
Level 2 Level 3
Tau2 (no predictor) 0.0037965 0.0141
Tau2 (with predictors) 0.0022976 0.0000
R2 0.3948192 1.0000
Number of studies (or clusters): 21
Number of observed statistics: 66
Number of estimated parameters: 8
Degrees of freedom: 58
-2 log likelihood: 5.076592
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

- Testing whether
`Country`

is significant after controlling for`Type`

- The test statistic was 12.5491 (
*df*= 4),*p*= 0.0137. Thus,`Country`

is significant after controlling for`Type`

.

- The test statistic was 12.5491 (

```
## Testing whether Country is significant after controlling for Type
anova(Model6, Model1)
```

```
base comparison ep minus2LL df AIC diffLL diffdf
1 Model 6 <NA> 8 5.076592 58 -110.9234 NA NA
2 Model 6 Meta analysis with ML 4 17.625692 62 -106.3743 12.5491 4
p
1 NA
2 0.01370262
```

`Discipline`

and `Country`

as covariates- The \(R^2_{(2)}\) and \(R^2_{(3)}\) were 0.1397 and 0.7126, respectively.

```
## Model 7: Discipline and Country as covariates
summary( meta3(logOR, v, x=cbind(DisciplinePhy, DisciplineLife, DisciplineSoc,
CountryAus, CountryCan, CountryEur, CountryUK),
cluster=Cluster, data=Bornmann07,
model.name="Model 7") )
```

```
Call:
meta3(y = logOR, v = v, cluster = Cluster, x = cbind(DisciplinePhy,
DisciplineLife, DisciplineSoc, CountryAus, CountryCan, CountryEur,
CountryUK), data = Bornmann07, model.name = "Model 7")
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Intercept 0.0029305 0.0576743 -0.1101090 0.1159700 0.0508 0.95948
Slope_1 0.1742169 0.1702554 -0.1594775 0.5079113 1.0233 0.30618
Slope_2 0.0826806 0.1599802 -0.2308749 0.3962360 0.5168 0.60528
Slope_3 -0.0462265 0.1715773 -0.3825119 0.2900589 -0.2694 0.78761
Slope_4 -0.0486321 0.1306919 -0.3047835 0.2075192 -0.3721 0.70981
Slope_5 -0.2169132 0.1915704 -0.5923843 0.1585578 -1.1323 0.25751
Slope_6 -0.3036578 0.1670721 -0.6311130 0.0237975 -1.8175 0.06914 .
Slope_7 -0.0605272 0.1809419 -0.4151669 0.2941125 -0.3345 0.73799
Tau2_2 0.0032661 0.0022784 -0.0011994 0.0077317 1.4335 0.15171
Tau2_3 0.0040618 0.0038459 -0.0034759 0.0115996 1.0562 0.29090
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 221.2809
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 65
P value of the Q statistic: 0
Explained variances (R2):
Level 2 Level 3
Tau2 (no predictor) 0.0037965 0.0141
Tau2 (with predictors) 0.0032661 0.0041
R2 0.1396973 0.7126
Number of studies (or clusters): 21
Number of observed statistics: 66
Number of estimated parameters: 10
Degrees of freedom: 56
-2 log likelihood: 10.31105
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

`Type`

, `Discipline`

and `Country`

as covariates- The \(R^2_{(2)}\) and \(R^2_{(3)}\) were 0.4466 and 1.0000, respectively. The \(\hat{\tau}^2_{(3)}\) was near 0 after controlling for the covariates.

```
## Model 8: Type, Discipline and Country as covariates
Model8 <- meta3(logOR, v, x=cbind(Type2, DisciplinePhy, DisciplineLife, DisciplineSoc,
CountryAus, CountryCan, CountryEur, CountryUK),
cluster=Cluster, data=Bornmann07,
model.name="Model 8")
## There was an estimation error. The model was rerun again.
summary(rerun(Model8))
```

```
Call:
meta3(y = logOR, v = v, cluster = Cluster, x = cbind(Type2, DisciplinePhy,
DisciplineLife, DisciplineSoc, CountryAus, CountryCan, CountryEur,
CountryUK), data = Bornmann07, model.name = "Model 8")
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value
Intercept 6.8563e-02 1.8630e-02 3.2049e-02 1.0508e-01 3.6802
Slope_1 -1.6885e-01 4.1545e-02 -2.5028e-01 -8.7425e-02 -4.0643
Slope_2 2.5329e-01 1.5814e-01 -5.6669e-02 5.6324e-01 1.6016
Slope_3 1.2689e-01 1.4774e-01 -1.6268e-01 4.1646e-01 0.8589
Slope_4 -8.3549e-03 1.5796e-01 -3.1795e-01 3.0124e-01 -0.0529
Slope_5 -1.1530e-01 1.1146e-01 -3.3377e-01 1.0317e-01 -1.0344
Slope_6 -2.6412e-01 1.6402e-01 -5.8559e-01 5.7343e-02 -1.6103
Slope_7 -2.9029e-01 1.4859e-01 -5.8152e-01 9.5150e-04 -1.9536
Slope_8 -1.5975e-01 1.6285e-01 -4.7893e-01 1.5943e-01 -0.9810
Tau2_2 2.1010e-03 1.2925e-03 -4.3226e-04 4.6342e-03 1.6255
Tau2_3 1.0000e-10 NA NA NA NA
Pr(>|z|)
Intercept 0.000233 ***
Slope_1 4.818e-05 ***
Slope_2 0.109239
Slope_3 0.390410
Slope_4 0.957818
Slope_5 0.300948
Slope_6 0.107323
Slope_7 0.050753 .
Slope_8 0.326608
Tau2_2 0.104051
Tau2_3 NA
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 221.2809
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 65
P value of the Q statistic: 0
Explained variances (R2):
Level 2 Level 3
Tau2 (no predictor) 0.0037965 0.0141
Tau2 (with predictors) 0.0021010 0.0000
R2 0.4466073 1.0000
Number of studies (or clusters): 21
Number of observed statistics: 66
Number of estimated parameters: 11
Degrees of freedom: 55
-2 log likelihood: -1.645211
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

When there are missing data in the covariates, data with missing values are excluded before the analysis in `meta3()`

. The missing covariates can be handled by the use of FIML in `meta3X()`

. We illustrate two examples on how to analyze data with missing covariates with missing completely at random (MCAR) and missing at random (MAR) data.

- About 25% of the level-2 covariate
`Type`

was introduced by the MCAR mechanism.

```
#### Handling missing covariates with FIML
## MCAR
## Set seed for replication
set.seed(1000000)
## Copy Bornmann07 to my.df
my.df <- Bornmann07
## "Fellowship": 1; "Grant": 0
my.df$Type_MCAR <- ifelse(Bornmann07$Type=="Fellowship", yes=1, no=0)
## Create 17 out of 66 missingness with MCAR
my.df$Type_MCAR[sample(1:66, 17)] <- NA
summary(meta3(y=logOR, v=v, cluster=Cluster, x=Type_MCAR, data=my.df))
```

```
Call:
meta3(y = logOR, v = v, cluster = Cluster, x = Type_MCAR, data = my.df)
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value
Intercept -0.00484542 0.03934429 -0.08195881 0.07226797 -0.1232
Slope_1 -0.21090081 0.05346222 -0.31568483 -0.10611679 -3.9449
Tau2_2 0.00446788 0.00549282 -0.00629784 0.01523361 0.8134
Tau2_3 0.00092884 0.00336491 -0.00566625 0.00752394 0.2760
Pr(>|z|)
Intercept 0.9020
Slope_1 7.985e-05 ***
Tau2_2 0.4160
Tau2_3 0.7825
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 151.643
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 48
P value of the Q statistic: 1.115552e-12
Explained variances (R2):
Level 2 Level 3
Tau2 (no predictor) 0.0042664 0.0145
Tau2 (with predictors) 0.0044679 0.0009
R2 0.0000000 0.9361
Number of studies (or clusters): 20
Number of observed statistics: 49
Number of estimated parameters: 4
Degrees of freedom: 45
-2 log likelihood: 13.13954
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

- There is no need to specify whether the covariates are level 2 or level 3 in
`meta3()`

because the covariates are treated as a design matrix. When`meta3X()`

is used, users need to specify whether the covariates are at level 2 (`x2`

) or level 3 (`x3`

).

`summary(meta3X(y=logOR, v=v, cluster=Cluster, x2=Type_MCAR, data=my.df))`

```
Call:
meta3X(y = logOR, v = v, cluster = Cluster, x2 = Type_MCAR, data = my.df)
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Intercept -0.0106318 0.0397685 -0.0885766 0.0673131 -0.2673 0.789207
SlopeX2_1 -0.1753249 0.0582619 -0.2895161 -0.0611337 -3.0093 0.002619 **
Tau2_2 0.0030338 0.0026839 -0.0022266 0.0082941 1.1304 0.258324
Tau2_3 0.0036839 0.0042817 -0.0047082 0.0120759 0.8604 0.389586
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Explained variances (R2):
Level 2 Level 3
Tau2 (no predictor) 0.0037965 0.0141
Tau2 (with predictors) 0.0030338 0.0037
R2 0.2009070 0.7394
Number of studies (or clusters): 21
Number of observed statistics: 115
Number of estimated parameters: 7
Degrees of freedom: 108
-2 log likelihood: 49.76372
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

- For the case for missing covariates with MAR, the missingness in
`Type`

depends on the values of`Year`

.`Type`

is missing when`Year`

is smaller than 1996.

```
## MAR
Type_MAR <- ifelse(Bornmann07$Type=="Fellowship", yes=1, no=0)
## Create 27 out of 66 missingness with MAR for cases Year<1996
index_MAR <- ifelse(Bornmann07$Year<1996, yes=TRUE, no=FALSE)
Type_MAR[index_MAR] <- NA
summary(meta3(logOR, v, x=Type_MAR, cluster=Cluster, data=Bornmann07))
```

```
Call:
meta3(y = logOR, v = v, cluster = Cluster, x = Type_MAR, data = Bornmann07)
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Intercept -0.01587052 0.03952546 -0.09333900 0.06159795 -0.4015 0.688032
Slope_1 -0.17573648 0.06328325 -0.29976937 -0.05170358 -2.7770 0.005487
Tau2_2 0.00259266 0.00171596 -0.00077056 0.00595588 1.5109 0.130811
Tau2_3 0.00278384 0.00267150 -0.00245221 0.00801989 1.0421 0.297388
Intercept
Slope_1 **
Tau2_2
Tau2_3
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 151.11
Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 38
P value of the Q statistic: 1.998401e-15
Explained variances (R2):
Level 2 Level 3
Tau2 (no predictor) 0.0029593 0.0097
Tau2 (with predictors) 0.0025927 0.0028
R2 0.1238925 0.7121
Number of studies (or clusters): 12
Number of observed statistics: 39
Number of estimated parameters: 4
Degrees of freedom: 35
-2 log likelihood: -24.19956
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

- It is possible to include level 2 (
`av2`

) and level 3 (`av3`

) auxiliary variables. Auxiliary variables are those that predict the missing values or are correlated with the variables that contain missing values. The inclusion of auxiliary variables can improve the efficiency of the estimation and the parameter estimates.

```
## Include auxiliary variable
summary(meta3X(y=logOR, v=v, cluster=Cluster, x2=Type_MAR, av2=Year, data=my.df))
```

```
Call:
meta3X(y = logOR, v = v, cluster = Cluster, x2 = Type_MAR, av2 = Year,
data = my.df)
95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation
Coefficients:
Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)
Intercept -0.0264057 0.0571975 -0.1385108 0.0856994 -0.4617 0.644326
SlopeX2_1 -0.2003999 0.0691035 -0.3358402 -0.0649596 -2.9000 0.003732 **
Tau2_2 0.0029970 0.0022371 -0.0013877 0.0073816 1.3397 0.180357
Tau2_3 0.0030212 0.0032462 -0.0033412 0.0093836 0.9307 0.352012
---
Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
Explained variances (R2):
Level 2 Level 3
Tau2 (no predictor) 0.0049237 0.0088
Tau2 (with predictors) 0.0029970 0.0030
R2 0.3913242 0.6571
Number of studies (or clusters): 21
Number of observed statistics: 171
Number of estimated parameters: 14
Degrees of freedom: 157
-2 log likelihood: 377.3479
OpenMx status1: 0 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.
Other values indicate problems.)
```

`OpenMx`

This section illustrates how to formulate three-level meta-analyses as structural equation models using the `OpenMx`

package. The steps outline how to create the model-implied mean vector and the model-implied covariance matrix to fit the three-level meta-analyses. `y`

is the effect size (standardized mean difference on the modified school calendars) and `v`

is its sampling variance. =District= is the variable for the cluster effect, whereas `Year`

is the year of publication.

- Data in a three-level meta-analysis are usually stored in the long format, e.g.,
`Cooper03`

in this example, whereas the SEM approach uses the wide format. - Suppose the maximum number of effect sizes in the level-2 unit is \(k\) (\(k=11\) in this example). Each cluster is represented by one row with \(k=11\) variables representing the outcome effect size, say
`y_1`

to`y_11`

in this example. The incomplete data are represented by`NA`

(missing value). - Similarly, \(k=11\) variables are required to represent the known sampling variances, say
`v_1`

to`v_11`

in this example. - If the covariates are at level 2, \(k=11\) variables are also required to represent each of them. For example,
`Year`

is a level-2 covariate,`Year_1`

to`Year_11`

are required to represent it. - Several extra steps are required to handle missing values. Missing values (represented by
`NA`

in`R`

) are not allowed in`v_1`

to`v_11`

as they are definition variables. The missing data are converted into some arbitrary values, say`1e10`

in this example. The actual value does not matter because the missing values will be removed before the analysis. It is because missing values in`y_1`

to`y_11`

(and`v_1`

to`v_11`

) will be filtered out automatically by the use of FIML.

```
#### Steps in Analyzing Three-level Meta-analysis in OpenMx
#### Preparing data
## Load the library
library("OpenMx")
## Get the dataset from the metaSEM library
data(Cooper03, package="metaSEM")
## Make a copy of the original data
my.long <- Cooper03
## Show the first few cases in my.long
head(my.long)
```

```
District Study y v Year
1 11 1 -0.18 0.118 1976
2 11 2 -0.22 0.118 1976
3 11 3 0.23 0.144 1976
4 11 4 -0.30 0.144 1976
5 12 5 0.13 0.014 1989
6 12 6 -0.26 0.014 1989
```

```
## Center the Year to increase numerical stability
my.long$Year <- scale(my.long$Year, scale=FALSE)
## maximum no. of effect sizes in level-2
k <- 11
## Create a variable called "time" to store: 1, 2, 3, ... k
my.long$time <- c(unlist(sapply(split(my.long$y, my.long$District),
function(x) 1:length(x))))
## Convert long format to wide format by "District"
my.wide <- reshape(my.long, timevar="time", idvar=c("District"),
sep="_", direction="wide")
## NA in v is due to NA in y in wide format
## Replace NA with 1e10 in "v"
temp <- my.wide[, paste("v_", 1:k, sep="")]
temp[is.na(temp)] <- 1e10
my.wide[, paste("v_", 1:k, sep="")] <- temp
## Replace NA with 0 in "Year"
temp <- my.wide[, paste("Year_", 1:k, sep="")]
temp[is.na(temp)] <- 0
my.wide[, paste("Year_", 1:k, sep="")] <- temp
## Show the first few cases in my.wide
head(my.wide)
```

```
District Study_1 y_1 v_1 Year_1 Study_2 y_2 v_2
1 11 1 -0.18 0.118 -13.5535714 2 -0.22 0.118
5 12 5 0.13 0.014 -0.5535714 6 -0.26 0.014
9 18 9 0.45 0.023 4.4464286 10 0.38 0.043
12 27 12 0.16 0.020 -13.5535714 13 0.65 0.004
16 56 16 0.08 0.019 7.4464286 17 0.04 0.007
20 58 20 -0.18 0.020 -13.5535714 21 0.00 0.018
Year_2 Study_3 y_3 v_3 Year_3 Study_4 y_4 v_4
1 -13.5535714 3 0.23 0.144 -13.5535714 4 -0.30 1.44e-01
5 -0.5535714 7 0.19 0.015 -0.5535714 8 0.32 2.40e-02
9 4.4464286 11 0.29 0.012 4.4464286 NA NA 1.00e+10
12 -13.5535714 14 0.36 0.004 -13.5535714 15 0.60 7.00e-03
16 7.4464286 18 0.19 0.005 7.4464286 19 -0.06 4.00e-03
20 -13.5535714 22 0.00 0.019 -13.5535714 23 -0.28 2.20e-02
Year_4 Study_5 y_5 v_5 Year_5 Study_6 y_6 v_6
1 -13.5535714 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA NA 1.0e+10
5 -0.5535714 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA NA 1.0e+10
9 0.0000000 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA NA 1.0e+10
12 -13.5535714 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA NA 1.0e+10
16 7.4464286 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA NA 1.0e+10
20 -13.5535714 24 -0.04 2e-02 -13.55357 25 -0.3 2.1e-02
Year_6 Study_7 y_7 v_7 Year_7 Study_8 y_8 v_8 Year_8
1 0.00000 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000
5 0.00000 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000
9 0.00000 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000
12 0.00000 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000
16 0.00000 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000
20 -13.55357 26 0.07 6e-03 -13.55357 27 0 7e-03 -13.55357
Study_9 y_9 v_9 Year_9 Study_10 y_10 v_10 Year_10 Study_11
1 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA
5 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA
9 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA
12 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA
16 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA NA 1e+10 0.00000 NA
20 28 0.05 7e-03 -13.55357 29 -0.08 7e-03 -13.55357 30
y_11 v_11 Year_11
1 NA 1e+10 0.00000
5 NA 1e+10 0.00000
9 NA 1e+10 0.00000
12 NA 1e+10 0.00000
16 NA 1e+10 0.00000
20 -0.09 7e-03 -13.55357
```

- To implement a three-level meta-analysis as a structural equation model, we need to specify both the model-implied mean vector \(\mu(\theta)\), say =expMean=, and the model-implied covariance matrix \(\Sigma(\theta)\), say
`expCov`

. - When there is no covariate, the expected mean is a \(k \times 1\) vector with all elements of =beta0= (the intercept), i.e., \(\mu(\theta) = \left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{array} \right]\beta_0\). Since
`OpenMx`

expects a row vector rather than a column vector in the model-implied means, we need to transpose the`expMean`

in the analysis. `Tau2`

(\(T^2_{(2)}\)) and =Tau3= (\(T^2_{(3)}\)) are the level 2 and level 3 matrices of heterogeneity, respectively. =Tau2= is a diagonal matrix with elements of \(\tau^2_{(2)}\), whereas =Tau3= is a full matrix with elements of \(\tau^2_{(3)}\). =V= is a diagonal matrix of the known sampling variances \(v_{ij}\).- The model-implied covariance matrix is \(\Sigma(\theta) = T^2_{(3)} + T^2_{(2)} + V\).
- All of these matrices are stored into a model called
`random.model`

.

```
#### Random-effects model
## Intercept
Beta0 <- mxMatrix("Full", ncol=1, nrow=1, free=TRUE, labels="beta0",
name="Beta0")
## 1 by k row vector of ones
Ones <- mxMatrix("Unit", nrow=k, ncol=1, name="Ones")
## Model implied mean vector
## OpenMx expects a row vector rather than a column vector.
expMean <- mxAlgebra( t(Ones %*% Beta0), name="expMean")
## Tau2_2
Tau2 <- mxMatrix("Symm", ncol=1, nrow=1, values=0.01, free=TRUE, labels="tau2_2",
name="Tau2")
Tau3 <- mxMatrix("Symm", ncol=1, nrow=1, values=0.01, free=TRUE, labels="tau2_3",
name="Tau3")
## k by k identity matrix
Iden <- mxMatrix("Iden", nrow=k, ncol=k, name="Iden")
## Conditional sampling variances
## data.v_1, data.v_2, ... data.v_k represent values for definition variables
V <- mxMatrix("Diag", nrow=k, ncol=k, free=FALSE,
labels=paste("data.v", 1:k, sep="_"), name="V")
## Model implied covariance matrix
expCov <- mxAlgebra( Ones%*% Tau3 %*% t(Ones) + Iden %x% Tau2 + V, name="expCov")
## Model stores everthing together
random.model <- mxModel(model="Random effects model",
mxData(observed=my.wide, type="raw"),
Iden, Ones, Beta0, Tau2, Tau3, V, expMean, expCov,
mxExpectationNormal("expCov","expMean",
dimnames=paste("y", 1:k, sep="_")),
mxFitFunctionML() )
```

- We perform a random-effects three-level meta-analysis by running the model with the
`mxRun()`

command. The parameter estimates (and their _SE_s) for \(\beta_0\), \(\tau^2_{(2)}\) and \(\tau^2_{(3)}\) were 0.1845 (0.0805), 0.0329 (0.0111) and 0.0577 (0.0307), respectively.

`summary( mxRun(random.model) )`

```
Summary of Random effects model
free parameters:
name matrix row col Estimate Std.Error
1 beta0 Beta0 1 1 0.18445537 0.08054110
2 tau2_2 Tau2 1 1 0.03286479 0.01113968
3 tau2_3 Tau3 1 1 0.05773836 0.03074229
observed statistics: 56
estimated parameters: 3
degrees of freedom: 53
fit value ( -2lnL units ): 16.78987
number of observations: 11
Information Criteria:
| df Penalty | Parameters Penalty | Sample-Size Adjusted
AIC: -89.21013 22.78987 NA
BIC: -110.29858 23.98356 14.95056
Some of your fit indices are missing.
To get them, fit saturated and independence models, and include them with
summary(yourModel, refModels=...)
See help(mxRefModels) for an easy way of doing this in many cases.
timestamp: 2015-05-12 14:22:46
Wall clock time (HH:MM:SS.hh): 00:00:00.07
optimizer: NPSOL
OpenMx version number: 2.1.0
Need help? See help(mxSummary)
```

- We may extend a random-effects model to a mixed-effects model by including a covariate (
`Year`

in this example). `beta1`

is the regression coefficient, whereas`X`

stores the value of`Year`

via definition variables.- The conditional model-implied mean vector is \(\mu(\theta|Year_{ij}) = \left[ \begin{array}{c} 1 \\ \vdots \\ 1 \end{array} \right]\beta_0 + \left[ \begin{array}{c} Year_{1j} \\ \vdots \\ Year_{kj} \end{array} \right]\beta_1\).
- The conditional model-implied covariance matrix is the same as that in the random-effects model, i.e., \(\Sigma(\theta|Year_{ij}) = T^2_{(3)} + T^2_{(2)} + V\).

```
#### Mixed-effects model
## Design matrix via definition variable
X <- mxMatrix("Full", nrow=k, ncol=1, free=FALSE,
labels=paste("data.Year_", 1:k, sep=""), name="X")
## Regression coefficient
Beta1 <- mxMatrix("Full", nrow=1, ncol=1, free=TRUE, values=0,
labels="beta1", name="Beta1")
## Model implied mean vector
expMean <- mxAlgebra( t(Ones%*%Beta0 + X%*%Beta1), name="expMean")
mixed.model <- mxModel(model="Mixed effects model",
mxData(observed=my.wide, type="raw"),
Iden, Ones, Beta0, Beta1, Tau2, Tau3, V, expMean, expCov,
X, mxExpectationNormal("expCov","expMean",
dimnames=paste("y", 1:k, sep="_")),
mxFitFunctionML() )
```

- The parameter estimates (and their _SE_s) for \(\beta_0\), \(\beta_1\), \(\tau^2_2\) and \(\tau^2_3\) were 0.1780 (0.0805), 0.0051 (0.0085), 0.0329 (0.0112) and 0.0565 (0.0300), respectively.

`summary ( mxRun(mixed.model) )`

```
Summary of Mixed effects model
free parameters:
name matrix row col Estimate Std.Error
1 beta0 Beta0 1 1 0.178026803 0.080521920
2 beta1 Beta1 1 1 0.005073722 0.008526625
3 tau2_2 Tau2 1 1 0.032939017 0.011162045
4 tau2_3 Tau3 1 1 0.056462816 0.030032948
observed statistics: 56
estimated parameters: 4
degrees of freedom: 52
fit value ( -2lnL units ): 16.43629
number of observations: 11
Information Criteria:
| df Penalty | Parameters Penalty | Sample-Size Adjusted
AIC: -87.56371 24.43629 NA
BIC: -108.25427 26.02787 13.98387
Some of your fit indices are missing.
To get them, fit saturated and independence models, and include them with
summary(yourModel, refModels=...)
See help(mxRefModels) for an easy way of doing this in many cases.
timestamp: 2015-05-12 14:22:46
Wall clock time (HH:MM:SS.hh): 00:00:00.09
optimizer: NPSOL
OpenMx version number: 2.1.0
Need help? See help(mxSummary)
```

References

Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., & Daniel, H.-D. (2007). Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. *Journal of Informetrics*, *1(3)*, 226–238.

Cheung, M.W.-L. (2009). Constructing approximate confidence intervals for parameters with structural equation models. *Structural Equation Modeling*, *16(2)*, 267-294.

Cheung, M.W.-L. (2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: A structural equation modeling approach. *Psychological Methods*, *19*, 211-229.

Cheung, M. W.-L. (2015). metaSEM: an R package for meta-analysis using structural equation modeling. *Frontiers in Psychology*, 5(1521). http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01521

Cooper, H., Valentine, J.C., Charlton, K., & Melson, A. (2003). The effects of modified school calendars on student achievement and on school and community attitudes. *Review of Educational Research*, *73(1)*, 1 –52.

Konstantopoulos, S. (2011). Fixed effects and variance components estimation in three-level meta-analysis. *Research Synthesis Methods*, *2(1)*, 61–76.

Marsh, H.W., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H.-D., & O’Mara, A. (2009). Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches. *Review of Educational Research*, *79(3)*, 1290–1326.

Neale, M.C., & Miller, M.B. (1997). The use of likelihood-based confidence intervals in genetic models. *Behavior Genetics*, *27(2)*, 113–120.