Heterogeneous heterogeneity by default: Testing categorical moderators in mixed-effects meta-analysis.

Abstract

Categorical moderators are often included in mixed-effects meta-analysis to explain heterogeneity in effect sizes. An assumption in tests of categorical moderator effects is that of a constant between-study variance across all levels of the moderator. Although it rarely receives serious thought, there can be statistical ramifications to upholding this assumption. We propose that researchers should instead default to assuming unequal between-study variances when analysing categorical moderators. To achieve this, we suggest using a mixed-effects location-scale model (MELSM) to allow group-specific estimates for the between-study variance. In two extensive simulation studies, we show that in terms of Type I error and statistical power, little is lost by using the MELSM for moderator tests, but there can be serious costs when an equal variance mixed-effects model (MEM) is used. Most notably, in scenarios with balanced sample sizes or equal between-study variance, the Type I error and power rates are nearly identical between the MEM and the MELSM. On the other hand, with imbalanced sample sizes and unequal variances, the Type I error rate under the MEM can be grossly inflated or overly conservative, whereas the MELSM does comparatively well in controlling the Type I error across the majority of cases. A notable exception where the MELSM did not clearly outperform the MEM was in the case of few studies (e.g., 5). With respect to power, the MELSM had similar or higher power than the MEM in conditions where the latter produced non-inflated Type 1 error rates. Together, our results support the idea that assuming unequal between-study variances is preferred as a default strategy when testing categorical moderators.