In meta-analysis, primary studies often include multiple, dependent effect sizes. Several methods address this dependency, such as the multivariate approach, three-level models, and the robust variance estimation (RVE) method. As for today, most simulation studies that explore the performance of these methods have focused on the estimation of the overall effect size. However, researchers are sometimes interested in obtaining separate effect size estimates for different types of outcomes. A recent simulation study (Park & Beretvas, 2019) has compared the performance of the three-level approach and the RVE method in estimating outcome-specific effects when several effect sizes are reported for different types of outcomes within studies. The goal of this paper is to extend that study by incorporating additional simulation conditions and by exploring the performance of additional models, such as the multivariate model, a three-level model that specifies different study-effects for each type of outcome, a three-level model that specifies a common study-effect for all outcomes, and separate three-level models for each type of outcome. Additionally, we also tested whether the a posteriori application of the RV correction improves the standard error estimates and the 95% confidence intervals. Results show that the application of separate three-level models for each type of outcome is the only approach that consistently gives adequate standard error estimates. Also, the a posteriori application of the RV correction results in correct 95% confidence intervals in all models, even if they are misspecified, meaning that Type I error rate is adequate when the RV correction is implemented.
Keywords: Meta-analysis; Multilevel; Multivariate; Outcome-effects; Robust variance estimation method.