A Monte Carlo study was conducted to determine Types I and II error rates of the Schmidt and Hunter (S&H) meta-analysis method and the U statistic for assessing homogeneity within a set of correlations. One thousand samples of correlations were generated randomly to fill each of 450 cells of an 18 × 5 × 5 (Underlying Population Correlations × Numbers of Correlations Compared × Sample Size Per Correlation) design. To assess Type I error rates, correlations were drawn from the same population. To assess power, correlations were drawn from two different populations. As compared with U, which was uniformly robust, the Type I error rate for the S&H method was unacceptably high in many cells, particularly when the criterion for determining homogeneity was set at a highly conservative level. Power for the S&H method increased with increasing size of population differences, sample size per correlation, and in some cases, number of correlations compared. The U statistic did more poorly in most conditions in protecting from Type II errors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Spector et al. (1987) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: