Developing meta-analytic methods is an important goal for psychological science. When there are few studies in particular, commonly used methods have several limitations, most notably of which is underestimating between-study variability. Although Bayesian methods are often recommended for small sample situations, their performance has not been thoroughly examined in the context of meta-analysis. Here, we characterize and apply weakly informativepriors for estimating meta-analytic models and demonstrate with extensive simulations that fully Bayesian methods overcome boundary estimates of exactly zero between-study variance, better maintain error rates, and have lower frequentist risk according toKullback-Leibler divergence. While our results show that combining evidence with few studiesis non-trivial, we argue that this is an important goal that deserves further considerationin psychology. Further, we suggest that frequentist properties can provide importantinformation for Bayesian modeling. We conclude with meta-analytic guidelines for appliedresearchers that can be implemented with the provided computer code.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Williams et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: