Ative method (Scammacca, Roberts, Stuebing, 204). In our network evaluation, all comparisons
Ative strategy (Scammacca, Roberts, Stuebing, 204). In our network analysis, all comparisons reported in a given experiment were integrated; on the other hand, if experiments reported additional than 1 comparison group of the same category, only 1 of these groups was selected, according to exactly the same process as described above. If studies incorporated only the all round sample size and did not PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11836068 detail the MedChemExpress Acetovanillone assignment of participants towards the experimental and manage group(s), we assumed that the sample sizes were equal across groups. When the total sample size was odd, we placed the remainder in the experimental group. To estimate the betweenstudy variance (two), the process of moments (DerSimonian Laird, 986) was employed. A Ztest was performed to test the all round effect. The homogeneity of effects was assessed using the Q statistic and I2. The Q statistic reflects the total quantity of variance in the metaanalysis. A considerable Q statistic indicates that the observed variation is various from that expected by sampling error alone. The I2 worth indexes the proportion of variance which is attributable to betweenstudy variations. Values of I2 range from 0 to 00 and it has been suggested to interpret 25 , 50 , and 75 as low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively (Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, Altman, 2003). Moderator analyses had been carried out using a mixed effects analysis. In mixed effects evaluation, a randomeffects model is utilised to combine studies within each and every subgroup. A fixedeffect model is made use of to combine subgroups, and it yields the all round effect. The studytostudy variance (2) was pooled across subgroups, simply because we had no reason to assume that the studytostudy variation was various for subgroups plus the estimate of 2 is much more precise when employing a pooled estimate based on more studies (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, Rothstein, 2009). To investigate the distinctive contribution of every moderator and to control for confounds, we ran a multivariate metaregression model which includes all moderator variables that were shown to possess a considerable association with effect size using the package Metafor in R (Viechtbauer, 200). Model match was assessed utilizing the proportion of the betweenstudy variance explained by the moderator(s) (R2analog), in addition to a significance test on the hypothesis that the residual betweenstudy variance equals zero. The betweenstudy variance explained by the moderator(s) was calculated by subtracting the residual betweenstudy variance in the model such as the moderators from its value in a model with no moderators. R2analog, the relative reduction inside the betweenstudy variance, was calculated by dividing the explained variance by the total variance.Zeitschrift f Psychologie (206), 224(three), 68206 Hogrefe Publishing. Distributed below the Hogrefe OpenMind License http:dx.doi.org0.027aM. Rennung A. 
S. G itz, Prosocial Consequences of Interpersonal SynchronyTable two. Preference method for collection of control group Comparison group is equivalent towards the synchronous group in the following characteristics Type of comparison 2 3 four five six Similar ms, coordinated (antiphase) Very same ms, not coordinated Different ms, interacting Distinct ms, not interacting No group setting No therapy Synchrony No No No No No No Coordination Yes No No No No No Very same ms Yes Yes No No No No Interaction Yes Yes Yes No No No Group setting Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Remedy Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NoNote. ms movementsensory stimulation.To identify regardless of whether the effect of MSIS is dependent upon t.
