RoBMA questions of interpretation
I am using RoBMA to explores the effect of a mild traumatic brain injury on types of attention. My sample includes 12 studies that have looked at selective attention, 4 studies for sustained attention, 1 study for divided attention, 3 studies for alternating attention and 5 studies that used a composite score of attention.
I want to conduct a RoBMA that assesses selective attention (n = 12), a RoBMA for the composite score studies (n = 5) and a RoBMA for all studies excluding the composite score studies (n = 20).
- Is my approach for the analysis adequate? I want to see which one has the highest meta-analytic effect.
- Are my sample sizes too small for this analysis? If so, is there a correction I can do to compensate?
- How can the Model Summary table give me an inclusion BF of 88.34, but when you look at the Model Overview table, no model containing an effect has any strong evidence for it? How is the program combining all models with an effect and arriving at such a large BF?
- If I report the model summary BF, what circumstances would warrant me talking about a specific model?