Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In case the origin of heterogeneity can be identified and may be attributed to certain study features, the analysis may be stratified (by considering subgroups of studies, which would then hopefully be more homogeneous), or by extending the analysis to a meta-regression, accounting for (continuous or categorical) moderator variables.
They relate to the validity of the often convenient assumption that the statistical properties of any one part of an overall dataset are the same as any other part. In meta-analysis, which combines the data from several studies, homogeneity measures the differences or similarities between the several studies (see also Study heterogeneity).
The terms random-effect meta-regression and mixed-effect meta-regression are equivalent. Although calling one a random-effect model signals the absence of fixed effects, which would technically disqualify it from being a regression model, one could argue that the modifier random-effect only adds to, not takes away from, what any regression model should include: fixed effects.
The complementary notion is called heteroscedasticity, also known as heterogeneity of variance. The spellings homos k edasticity and heteros k edasticity are also frequently used. “Skedasticity” comes from the Ancient Greek word “skedánnymi”, meaning “to scatter”.
Results that fail to overlap well are termed heterogeneous and is referred to as the heterogeneity of the data—such data is less conclusive. If the results are similar between various studies, the data is said to be homogeneous, and the tendency is for these data to be more conclusive. The heterogeneity is indicated by the I 2.
Under this condition, even heterogeneous preferences can be represented by a single aggregate agent simply by summing over individual demand to market demand. However, some questions in economic theory cannot be accurately addressed without considering differences across agents, requiring a heterogeneous agent model.
The number of adults eating in a way they consider to be healthy has fallen, according to new data. What’s more, research shows they aren’t enjoying the food either.
An asymmetric funnel indicates a relationship between treatment effect estimate and study precision. This suggests the possibility of either publication bias or a systematic difference between studies of higher and lower precision (typically ‘small study effects’). Asymmetry can also arise from use of an inappropriate effect measure.