Hello all,

I am getting status 5 for some analyses and am not sure why. I am including the code and output below. There are 4 clusters and 9 effects. Any idea what is causing it?

Thanks!

###### #### CODE

clustvar <-c(3.1,3.1,41.1,52.1,52.1,52.1,52.1,56.1,56.1)

effsize <-c(0.0370169,-0.04603249,0.25541281,0.20065009,0.18405043,0.12667322,0.21526454,0.01300073,-0.05304971)

samplvar <-c(0.01020408,0.01020408,0.01298701,0.01538462,0.01538462,0.01538462,0.01538462,0.0078125,0.0078125)

summary( meta3(y=effsize, v=samplvar,cluster=clustvar) )

###### ### End Code

##### Output below

Call:

meta3(y = effsize, v = samplvar, cluster = clustvar)

95% confidence intervals: z statistic approximation

Coefficients:

Estimate Std.Error lbound ubound z value Pr(>|z|)

Intercept 8.5684e-02 5.5208e-02 -2.2522e-02 1.9389e-01 1.5520 0.1207

Tau2_2 1.4867e-09 NA NA NA NA NA

Tau2_3 6.3242e-03 6.6531e-03 -6.7157e-03 1.9364e-02 0.9506 0.3418

Q statistic on the homogeneity of effect sizes: 9.921885 Degrees of freedom of the Q statistic: 8 P value of the Q statistic: 0.2705515

Heterogeneity indices (based on the estimated Tau2):

Estimate

I2_2 (Typical v: Q statistic) 0.0000

I2_3 (Typical v: Q statistic) 0.3543

Number of studies (or clusters): 4

Number of observed statistics: 9

Number of estimated parameters: 3

Degrees of freedom: 6

-2 log likelihood: -15.12369

OpenMx status1: 5 ("0" or "1": The optimization is considered fine.

Other values may indicate problems.)

Dear Sorin,

I think that the issue is related to the small numbers of studies and effect sizes:

If you rerun it, the results seem fine. Tau2_2 is amost zero indicating that there is not much variation within studies.

Since there are only a few studies (and effect sizes), the findings are highly questionable.

Mike