Original Table 1 Results for different indicators to assess the performance of the three meta-analysis bias-adjustment methods

From: Author Correction: Comparing meta-analyses and preregistered multiple-laboratory replication projects

Method

False Positive Rate, 0.5% level (5% level)

False Negative Rate, 0.5% level (5% level)

Mean Meta-Replication Difference; Random Effects (z-statistic; p-value)

Mean Meta-Replication Difference; Random Effects 99.5% CI (95% CI)

Mean Meta-Replication Difference; Unweighted

Overestimation Factor

Root Mean Squared Error

Mean MDE 0.5% level (5% level)

Random Effects

100% (100%)

0% (0%)

0.265 (5.69; <0.001)

0.13, 0.40(0.17, 0.36)

0.26

2.7

0.31

0.200 (0.16)

PET-PEESE

14.2% (16.6%)

71.4% (75%)

0.0285 (0.47; 0.636)

-0.14, 0.20(-0.09, 0.15)

-0.01

0.95

0.22

0.60 (0.46)

3PSM

85.7% (100%)

14.3% (0%)

0.235 (5.44; <0.001)

0.11, 0.36 (0.15, 0.32)

0.23

2.49

0.28

0.30 (0.23)

Trim-and-Fill

100% (100%)

0% (0%)

0.24 (5.66; <0.001)

0.12, 0.35 (0.16, 0.32)

0.24

2.53

0.28

0.20 (0.16)

  1. In estimating the indicators, the meta-analytic results for the bias-adjustment methods are compared to the results for the replication studies (we also include results for the Random Effects model as a benchmark of the value of the indicators for uncorrected meta-analysis). Results for several indicators are shown for both the 0.5% and the 5% significance levels; see the Methods section for the definition of the indicators.
Back to article page