Correlation Meta-analysis

 

Menu location: Analysis_Meta-Analysis_Correlation.

 

This function enables you to calculate an overall correlation coefficient (r) from a set of correlations.

 

Two methods are used: The Hedges-Olkin method is based on a conventional summary meta-analysis with a Fisher Z transformation of the correlation coefficient (Hedges and Olkin, 1985). The Hunter-Schmidt method is effectively a weighted mean of the raw correlation coefficient (Hunter and Schmidt, 1990).

 

Neither of these methods is completely suitable for either a small number of studies (less than 30) or a heterogeneous set of studies (Field, 2001). The Hedges-Olkin method tends to over estimate the pooled effect whereas the Schmidt-Hunter method under-estimates it a little when the correlation is greater than 0.5. The least biased estimate of the true population correlation is provided by the Schmidt-Hunter method. The Hedges-Olkin method reduces the risk of type I error when compared with the Schmidt-Hunter method, but only when the studies are homogeneous. For heterogeneous studies you should consider consulting with a Statistician about an alternative multilevel modelling approach.

 

The inconsistency of results across studies is summarised in the I² statistic, which is the percentage of variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance – see the heterogeneity section for more information.

 

DATA INPUT:

You enter the correlation coefficient and the sample size for each study. You may also enter a title for each study.

 

Example

The following data represent the relationship between drug misuse and delinquency. A small homogeneous set of studies is used for convenience here, and because the results are widely cited on-line across a variety of public code bases that implement the algorithms. Note that correlation studies are usually heterogeneous, in which case at least 30 studies should be used:

 

Correlation Sample size
0.51 131
0.48 129
0.30 155
0.21 121
0.60 111
0.46 119
0.22 112
0.25 145

 

To analyse these data in StatsDirect first prepare them in two workbook columns and label these columns appropriately. Alternatively, open the test workbook using the file open function of the file menu. Then select correlation from the meta-analysis section of the analysis menu, and then select the columns 'Correlation' and 'Sample size' as prompted.

 

For this example:

 

Study Size Correlation Approximate 95% CI
1 131 0.51 0.370922 0.626703
2 129 0.48 0.334935 0.602837
3 155 0.30 0.149418 0.436981
4 121 0.21 0.03273 0.37446
5 111 0.60 0.465688 0.707292
6 119 0.46 0.305281 0.591057
7 112 0.22 0.03591 0.389649
8 145 0.25 0.090686 0.396837

 

Stratum Standardized effect Variance % Weights (fixed, random, size)
1 0.56273 0.007813 12.812813 12.609861 12.805474
2 0.522984 0.007937 12.612613 12.559901 12.609971
3 0.30952 0.006579 15.215215 13.129365 15.151515
4 0.213171 0.008475 11.811812 12.347632 11.827957
5 0.693147 0.009259 10.810811 12.050626 10.85044
6 0.497311 0.008621 11.611612 12.291224 11.632454
7 0.223656 0.009174 10.910911 12.082088 10.948192
8 0.255413 0.007042 14.214214 12.929303 14.173998

 

Hedges-Olkin fixed effects

Pooled correlation = 0.383132 (95% CI = 0.329008 to 0.434748)

Z (test correlation differs from 0) = 12.760536  P < 0.0001

 

Non-combinability of studies

Cochran Q = 27.382264  (df = 7)  P = 0.0003

Moment-based estimate of between studies variance = 0.023363

I² (inconsistency) = 74.4% (95% CI = 46.2% to 86.5%)

 

Hedges-Olkin random effects

Pooled correlation = 0.387032 (95% CI = 0.277911 to 0.486292)

Z (test correlation differs from 0) = 6.512137  P < 0.0001

 

Bias indicators

Begg-Mazumdar: Kendall's tau = 0.071429  P = 0.9049 (low power)

Egger: bias = 10.348335 (90% CI = -13.777152 to 34.473823)  P = 0.4365

 

Schmidt-Hunter

Weighted mean correlation (95% CI): 0.374262 (0.278809 to 0.469714)

Z (test correlation differs from 0) = 7.684871 P < 0.0001

 

Observed variance across studies: 0.018974

Variance due to sampling error: 0.005828

Variance in the population correlations: 0.013146

95% Credibility interval for weighted mean correlation: 0.14954 to 0.598984

 

Indicators of homogeneity/heterogeneity:

  1. 1. Residual standard deviation (should be smaller than 1/4 WMC: 0.093565): 0.114656
  2. 2. Percent of observed variance accounted for by sampling error (should be at least 75%): 30.717078
  3. 3. Chi-square test of heterogeneity: 26.044144 P = 0.0005

 

Here we cannot make a confident statement about the pooled correlation coefficient because the set of studies is clearly not homogeneous and the number of studies is too small for standard correlation meta-analysis methods to be reliable.