DOCSLIB.ORG

Combining Surveys from a Meta-Analysis Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Combining Surveys from a Meta-Analysis Perspective Combining Surveys From A Meta-analysis Perspective Sally C. Morton The RAND Corporation, Statistics Group 1700 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 USA [email protected] 1. Introduction Several issues faced in combining surveys, specifically dealing with survey heterogeneity, prospectively planning data collection, and pooling data across surveys, may benefit from insights gained from meta-analysis, or “the practice of using statistical methods to combine the outcomes of a series of different experiments or investigations” (Laird and Mosteller 1990, p. 5). The goal of this talk is to draw such parallels. I will focus on study-level meta-analysis, in which study effect sizes (summary statistics) are combined. As an extended example, I will discuss estimating the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) complications in the general population, using data from a meta-analysis of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) side effects. Meta-analysis has four steps: identify all relevant studies; assess study quality; deal with study heterogeneity; and summarize the results. Many references describe these steps and how to assess their correctness (Cook et al. 1995). The Cochrane Collaboration (www.cochrane.org) is a leader in providing techniques for comprehensive, unbiased, and reproducible searches that locate all the evidence, including unpublished studies to avoid publication bias. Assessing study quality involves considering both the strength of the study design and its execution; methods have primarily focused on randomized controlled trials (Moher et al. 1996). 2. Dealing With Survey and Study Heterogeneity I will discuss heterogeneity and illustrate the benefit of design variation (RCT, case- control, cohort) in the NSAIDs meta-analysis studies in terms of expanding the generalizability of the GI complication risk estimate. Kish (1994) discusses the effect of heterogeneity on combining surveys and emphasizes “deliberate” survey design, “not the mere post hoc or ad hoc utilization of survey results” (p. 1). He stresses standardization of survey elements (definitions, methods, measurements, models), but suggests that sampling designs and sizes may vary to utilize resources efficiently. In meta-analysis, “heterogeneity characterizes the situation in which differences in study outcomes are not readily accounted for by sampling variation” (Colditz et al. 1995); heterogeneity is assessed from substantive and statistical perspectives. A random effects model may be used to incorporate between-study variation (Sec. 3 below). Ideally, heterogeneity is an opportunity to understand study inconsistencies, for example, different treatment effects in subpopulations, perhaps via meta-regression. Rubin (1992) argues that study effect sizes should be modeled as a response surface varying along scientifically important factors, for example population or setting characteristics, and design variables. New studies should be proposed and performed to fill in poorly estimated areas. A related idea is prospective meta-analysis, in which studies are designed jointly so they may be combined later via meta-analysis. 3. Combining Data Across Surveys and Across Studies Kish (1998), in the context of constructing an average birthrate for a continent using separate country birthrates, proposes three options for pooling multinational samples that are directly comparable to the three main meta-analytic models for combining study effect sizes: equal, fixed and random effects. Kish’s population weights approach is akin to equal effects; his suggestion to give each country’s estimate an equal weight is fixed effects; and his use of country weights to optimize least-square loss is in the spirit of random effects. In meta-analysis, the latter two models are the most common (Laird and Mosteller 1990). The equal effects ˆ population proportion estimate Pe treats all subjects as independent and of equal importance, ˆ while the fixed and random effects estimates Pw are weighted averages of the study proportions: K n k K ∑∑xik ∑ w k pk == = (1) Pˆ = k 1i 1 and Pˆ = k 1 . e K w K ∑ n k ∑ w k k =1 k =1 = In (1), xik 1 if patient i (i=1,…, n k ) from study k (k=1,…,K) has the outcome (a GI complication), and equals 0 if not; and the proportion of patients in study k with GI ˆ = complications is pk . The fixed effects estimate Pw treats all studies equally ( w k 1for all k). The random effects approach sets w k equal to the inverse of the sum of the within-study and between-study variances. Meta-analysis has proved a useful technique in combining information across studies. Preliminary evidence suggests that statisticians should explore its application in the context of combining surveys. REFERENCES Colditz G. A., Burdick E. and Mosteller F. (1995). Heterogeneity in Meta-analysis of Data from Epidemiologic Studies: A Commentary. American J. of Epidemiology 142, 371-382. Cook D. J., Sackett D. L. and Spitzer W. O. (1995). Methodologic Guidelines for Systematic Reviews of Randomized Control Trials. J. of Clinical Epidemiology 48, 167-171. Kish L. (1994). Multipopulation Survey Designs: Five Types with Seven Shared Aspects. International Statistical Review 62, 167-186. Kish, L. (1998). Combining Multipopulation Statistics. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Laird N. M. and Mosteller F. (1990). Some Statistical Methods for Combining Experimental Results. International J. of Technology Assessment 6, 5-30. Moher D., Jadad A. R. and Tugwell P. (1996). Assessing the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials. International J. of Technology Assessment 12, 195-208. Rubin D. B. (1992). Meta-analysis: Literature Synthesis or Effect-Size Surface Estimation? J. of Educational Statistics 17, 363-374. RÉSUMÉ Les questions posées par le groupement des données d’enquêtes à sondage – en particulier la question d’hétérégénéité, la planification prospective des enquêtes de sondage, et les méthodes pour grouper les données de plusieurs enquêtes – peuvent bénéficier des connaissances gagnées dans la “meta-analysis”, dans laquelle les resultats de différentes études sont groupées. Le but de cette présentation est de démontrer ce parralléle..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DATA COLLECTION METHODS Section III 5
    AN OVERVIEW OF QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION METHODS Section III 5. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: SOME TIPS AND COMPARISONS In the previous chapter, we identified two broad types of evaluation methodologies: quantitative and qualitative. In this section, we talk more about the debate over the relative virtues of these approaches and discuss some of the advantages and disadvantages of different types of instruments. In such a debate, two types of issues are considered: theoretical and practical. Theoretical Issues Most often these center on one of three topics: · The value of the types of data · The relative scientific rigor of the data · Basic, underlying philosophies of evaluation Value of the Data Quantitative and qualitative techniques provide a tradeoff between breadth and depth, and between generalizability and targeting to specific (sometimes very limited) populations. For example, a quantitative data collection methodology such as a sample survey of high school students who participated in a special science enrichment program can yield representative and broadly generalizable information about the proportion of participants who plan to major in science when they get to college and how this proportion differs by gender. But at best, the survey can elicit only a few, often superficial reasons for this gender difference. On the other hand, separate focus groups (a qualitative technique related to a group interview) conducted with small groups of men and women students will provide many more clues about gender differences in the choice of science majors, and the extent to which the special science program changed or reinforced attitudes. The focus group technique is, however, limited in the extent to which findings apply beyond the specific individuals included in the groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Statistical Inference: How Reliable Is a Survey?
    Math 203, Fall 2008: Statistical Inference: How reliable is a survey? Consider a survey with a single question, to which respondents are asked to give an answer of yes or no. Suppose you pick a random sample of n people, and you find that the proportion that answered yes isp ˆ. Question: How close isp ˆ to the actual proportion p of people in the whole population who would have answered yes? In order for there to be a reliable answer to this question, the sample size, n, must be big enough so that the sample distribution is close to a bell shaped curve (i.e., close to a normal distribution). But even if n is big enough that the distribution is close to a normal distribution, usually you need to make n even bigger in order to make sure your margin of error is reasonably small. Thus the first thing to do is to be sure n is big enough for the sample distribution to be close to normal. The industry standard for being close enough is for n to be big enough so that 1 − p 1 − p n > 9 and n > 9 p p both hold. When p is about 50%, n can be as small as 10, but when p gets close to 0 or close to 1, the sample size n needs to get bigger. If p is 1% or 99%, then n must be at least 892, for example. (Note also that n here depends on p but not on the size of the whole population.) See Figures 1 and 2 showing frequency histograms for the number of yes respondents if p = 1% when the sample size n is 10 versus 1000 (this data was obtained by running a computer simulation taking 10000 samples).
    [Show full text]
  • Data Extraction for Complex Meta-Analysis (Decimal) Guide
    Pedder, H. , Sarri, G., Keeney, E., Nunes, V., & Dias, S. (2016). Data extraction for complex meta-analysis (DECiMAL) guide. Systematic Reviews, 5, [212]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0368-4 Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record License (if available): CC BY Link to published version (if available): 10.1186/s13643-016-0368-4 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via BioMed Central at http://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-016-0368-4. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/ Pedder et al. Systematic Reviews (2016) 5:212 DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0368-4 RESEARCH Open Access Data extraction for complex meta-analysis (DECiMAL) guide Hugo Pedder1*, Grammati Sarri2, Edna Keeney3, Vanessa Nunes1 and Sofia Dias3 Abstract As more complex meta-analytical techniques such as network and multivariate meta-analyses become increasingly common, further pressures are placed on reviewers to extract data in a systematic and consistent manner. Failing to do this appropriately wastes time, resources and jeopardises accuracy. This guide (data extraction for complex meta-analysis (DECiMAL)) suggests a number of points to consider when collecting data, primarily aimed at systematic reviewers preparing data for meta-analysis.
    [Show full text]
  • SAMPLING DESIGN & WEIGHTING in the Original
    Appendix A 2096 APPENDIX A: SAMPLING DESIGN & WEIGHTING In the original National Science Foundation grant, support was given for a modified probability sample. Samples for the 1972 through 1974 surveys followed this design. This modified probability design, described below, introduces the quota element at the block level. The NSF renewal grant, awarded for the 1975-1977 surveys, provided funds for a full probability sample design, a design which is acknowledged to be superior. Thus, having the wherewithal to shift to a full probability sample with predesignated respondents, the 1975 and 1976 studies were conducted with a transitional sample design, viz., one-half full probability and one-half block quota. The sample was divided into two parts for several reasons: 1) to provide data for possibly interesting methodological comparisons; and 2) on the chance that there are some differences over time, that it would be possible to assign these differences to either shifts in sample designs, or changes in response patterns. For example, if the percentage of respondents who indicated that they were "very happy" increased by 10 percent between 1974 and 1976, it would be possible to determine whether it was due to changes in sample design, or an actual increase in happiness. There is considerable controversy and ambiguity about the merits of these two samples. Text book tests of significance assume full rather than modified probability samples, and simple random rather than clustered random samples. In general, the question of what to do with a mixture of samples is no easier solved than the question of what to do with the "pure" types.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Human Subjects Protection Issues Related to Large Sample Surveys
    Summary of Human Subjects Protection Issues Related to Large Sample Surveys U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics Joan E. Sieber June 2001, NCJ 187692 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs John Ashcroft Attorney General Bureau of Justice Statistics Lawrence A. Greenfeld Acting Director Report of work performed under a BJS purchase order to Joan E. Sieber, Department of Psychology, California State University at Hayward, Hayward, California 94542, (510) 538-5424, e-mail [email protected]. The author acknowledges the assistance of Caroline Wolf Harlow, BJS Statistician and project monitor. Ellen Goldberg edited the document. Contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Bureau of Justice Statistics or the Department of Justice. This report and others from the Bureau of Justice Statistics are available through the Internet — http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2 Limitations of the Common Rule with respect to survey research 2 2. Risks and benefits of participation in sample surveys 5 Standard risk issues, researcher responses, and IRB requirements 5 Long-term consequences 6 Background issues 6 3. Procedures to protect privacy and maintain confidentiality 9 Standard issues and problems 9 Confidentiality assurances and their consequences 21 Emerging issues of privacy and confidentiality 22 4. Other procedures for minimizing risks and promoting benefits 23 Identifying and minimizing risks 23 Identifying and maximizing possible benefits 26 5. Procedures for responding to requests for help or assistance 28 Standard procedures 28 Background considerations 28 A specific recommendation: An experiment within the survey 32 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey Experiments
    IU Workshop in Methods – 2019 Survey Experiments Testing Causality in Diverse Samples Trenton D. Mize Department of Sociology & Advanced Methodologies (AMAP) Purdue University Survey Experiments Page 1 Survey Experiments Page 2 Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Overview .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 What is a survey experiment? .................................................................................................................................... 9 What is an experiment?.............................................................................................................................................. 10 Independent and dependent variables ................................................................................................................. 11 Experimental Conditions ............................................................................................................................................. 12 WHY CONDUCT A SURVEY EXPERIMENT? ........................................................................................................................... 13 Internal, external, and construct validity ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Survey Questions Question
    What Respondents Do to Answer a Evaluating Survey Questions Question • Comprehend Question • Retrieve Information from Memory Chase H. Harrison Ph.D. • Summarize Information Program on Survey Research • Report an Answer Harvard University Problems in Answering Survey Problems in Answering Survey Questions Questions – Failure to comprehend – Failure to recall • If respondents don’t understand question, they • Questions assume respondents have information cannot answer it • If respondents never learned something, they • If different respondents understand question cannot provide information about it differently, they end up answering different questions • Problems with researcher putting more emphasis on subject than respondent Problems in Answering Survey Problems in Answering Survey Questions Questions – Problems Summarizing – Problems Reporting Answers • If respondents are thinking about a lot of things, • Confusing or vague answer formats lead to they can inconsistently summarize variability • If the way the respondent remembers something • Interactions with interviewers or technology can doesn’t readily correspond to the question, they lead to problems (sensitive or embarrassing may be inconsistemt responses) 1 Evaluating Survey Questions Focus Groups • Early stage • Qualitative research tool – Focus groups to understand topics or dimensions of measures • Used to develop ideas for questionnaires • Pre-Test Stage – Cognitive interviews to understand question meaning • Used to understand scope of issues – Pre-test under typical field
    [Show full text]
  • MRS Guidance on How to Read Opinion Polls
    What are opinion polls? MRS guidance on how to read opinion polls June 2016 1 June 2016 www.mrs.org.uk MRS Guidance Note: How to read opinion polls MRS has produced this Guidance Note to help individuals evaluate, understand and interpret Opinion Polls. This guidance is primarily for non-researchers who commission and/or use opinion polls. Researchers can use this guidance to support their understanding of the reporting rules contained within the MRS Code of Conduct. Opinion Polls – The Essential Points What is an Opinion Poll? An opinion poll is a survey of public opinion obtained by questioning a representative sample of individuals selected from a clearly defined target audience or population. For example, it may be a survey of c. 1,000 UK adults aged 16 years and over. When conducted appropriately, opinion polls can add value to the national debate on topics of interest, including voting intentions. Typically, individuals or organisations commission a research organisation to undertake an opinion poll. The results to an opinion poll are either carried out for private use or for publication. What is sampling? Opinion polls are carried out among a sub-set of a given target audience or population and this sub-set is called a sample. Whilst the number included in a sample may differ, opinion poll samples are typically between c. 1,000 and 2,000 participants. When a sample is selected from a given target audience or population, the possibility of a sampling error is introduced. This is because the demographic profile of the sub-sample selected may not be identical to the profile of the target audience / population.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evidence from World Values Survey Data
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive The return of religious Antisemitism? The evidence from World Values Survey data Tausch, Arno Innsbruck University and Corvinus University 17 November 2018 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/90093/ MPRA Paper No. 90093, posted 18 Nov 2018 03:28 UTC The return of religious Antisemitism? The evidence from World Values Survey data Arno Tausch Abstract 1) Background: This paper addresses the return of religious Antisemitism by a multivariate analysis of global opinion data from 28 countries. 2) Methods: For the lack of any available alternative we used the World Values Survey (WVS) Antisemitism study item: rejection of Jewish neighbors. It is closely correlated with the recent ADL-100 Index of Antisemitism for more than 100 countries. To test the combined effects of religion and background variables like gender, age, education, income and life satisfaction on Antisemitism, we applied the full range of multivariate analysis including promax factor analysis and multiple OLS regression. 3) Results: Although religion as such still seems to be connected with the phenomenon of Antisemitism, intervening variables such as restrictive attitudes on gender and the religion-state relationship play an important role. Western Evangelical and Oriental Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism are performing badly on this account, and there is also a clear global North-South divide for these phenomena. 4) Conclusions: Challenging patriarchic gender ideologies and fundamentalist conceptions of the relationship between religion and state, which are important drivers of Antisemitism, will be an important task in the future. Multiculturalism must be aware of prejudice, patriarchy and religious fundamentalism in the global South.
    [Show full text]
  • Reasoning with Qualitative Data: Using Retroduction with Transcript Data
    Reasoning With Qualitative Data: Using Retroduction With Transcript Data © 2019 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved. This PDF has been generated from SAGE Research Methods Datasets. SAGE SAGE Research Methods Datasets Part 2019 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved. 2 Reasoning With Qualitative Data: Using Retroduction With Transcript Data Student Guide Introduction This example illustrates how different forms of reasoning can be used to analyse a given set of qualitative data. In this case, I look at transcripts from semi-structured interviews to illustrate how three common approaches to reasoning can be used. The first type (deductive approaches) applies pre-existing analytical concepts to data, the second type (inductive reasoning) draws analytical concepts from the data, and the third type (retroductive reasoning) uses the data to develop new concepts and understandings about the issues. The data source – a set of recorded interviews of teachers and students from the field of Higher Education – was collated by Dr. Christian Beighton as part of a research project designed to inform teacher educators about pedagogies of academic writing. Interview Transcripts Interviews, and their transcripts, are arguably the most common data collection tool used in qualitative research. This is because, while they have many drawbacks, they offer many advantages. Relatively easy to plan and prepare, interviews can be flexible: They are usually one-to one but do not have to be so; they can follow pre-arranged questions, but again this is not essential; and unlike more impersonal ways of collecting data (e.g., surveys or observation), they Page 2 of 13 Reasoning With Qualitative Data: Using Retroduction With Transcript Data SAGE SAGE Research Methods Datasets Part 2019 SAGE Publications, Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Concurrent Web Options on Mail Survey Response Rates
    When More Gets You Less: A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Concurrent Web Options on Mail Survey Response Rates Jenna Fulton and Rebecca Medway Joint Program in Survey Methodology, University of Maryland May 19, 2012 Background: Mixed-Mode Surveys • Growing use of mixed-mode surveys among practitioners • Potential benefits for cost, coverage, and response rate • One specific mixed-mode design – mail + Web – is often used in an attempt to increase response rates • Advantages: both are self-administered modes, likely have similar measurement error properties • Two strategies for administration: • “Sequential” mixed-mode • One mode in initial contacts, switch to other in later contacts • Benefits response rates relative to a mail survey • “Concurrent” mixed-mode • Both modes simultaneously in all contacts 2 Background: Mixed-Mode Surveys • Growing use of mixed-mode surveys among practitioners • Potential benefits for cost, coverage, and response rate • One specific mixed-mode design – mail + Web – is often used in an attempt to increase response rates • Advantages: both are self-administered modes, likely have similar measurement error properties • Two strategies for administration: • “Sequential” mixed-mode • One mode in initial contacts, switch to other in later contacts • Benefits response rates relative to a mail survey • “Concurrent” mixed-mode • Both modes simultaneously in all contacts 3 • Mixed effects on response rates relative to a mail survey Methods: Meta-Analysis • Given mixed results in literature, we conducted a meta- analysis
    [Show full text]
  • (“Quasi-Experimental”) Study Designs Are Most Likely to Produce Valid Estimates of a Program’S Impact?
    Which Comparison-Group (“Quasi-Experimental”) Study Designs Are Most Likely to Produce Valid Estimates of a Program’s Impact?: A Brief Overview and Sample Review Form Originally published by the Coalition for Evidence- Based Policy with funding support from the William T. Grant Foundation and U.S. Department of Labor, January 2014 Updated by the Arnold Ventures Evidence-Based Policy team, December 2018 This publication is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part for educational purposes is granted. We welcome comments and suggestions on this document ([email protected]). Brief Overview: Which Comparison-Group (“Quasi-Experimental”) Studies Are Most Likely to Produce Valid Estimates of a Program’s Impact? I. A number of careful investigations have been carried out to address this question. Specifically, a number of careful “design-replication” studies have been carried out in education, employment/training, welfare, and other policy areas to examine whether and under what circumstances non-experimental comparison-group methods can replicate the results of well- conducted randomized controlled trials. These studies test comparison-group methods against randomized methods as follows. For a particular program being evaluated, they first compare program participants’ outcomes to those of a randomly-assigned control group, in order to estimate the program’s impact in a large, well- implemented randomized design – widely recognized as the most reliable, unbiased method of assessing program impact. The studies then compare the same program participants with a comparison group selected through methods other than randomization, in order to estimate the program’s impact in a comparison-group design.
    [Show full text]