Stuart’s tau measure of effect size for ordinal variables: Some methodological considerations
Tóm tắt
The reporting of measures of effect size has become increasingly important in psychology. A Monte Carlo resampling permutation procedure is introduced to find near-optimum maximum values for Stuart’s τ
c
measure for two-way ordinal contingency tables, also termed Kendall’s τ
c
since Kendall introduced τ
a
and τ
b
. Comparisons between resampling and exact procedures demonstrate the accuracy and utility of resampling measures of effect size for two-way ordinal contingency tables. The resampling procedure is shown to be more precise than the traditional method of standardizing τ
c
.
Tài liệu tham khảo
American Psychological Association (1994). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Capraro, R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2002). Treatments of effect sizes and statistical significance in textbooks. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 62, 771–782.
Fréchet, M. (1951). Sur les tableaux de corrélation dont les marges sont donnés. Annales de l’Univeristé de Lyon, 4, 53–77.
Hays, W. L. (1963). Statistics for psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Hunter, J. E. (1997). Needed: A ban on the significance test. Psychological Science, 8, 3–7.
Johnston, J. E., Berry, K. J., & Mielke, P. W., Jr. (2004). A measure of effect size for experimental designs with heterogeneous variances. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 98, 3–18.
Kendall, M. G. (1938). A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika, 30, 81–93.
Kendall, M. G. (1945). The treatment of ties in ranking problems. Biometrika, 33, 239–251.
Killeen, P. R. (2005). An alternative to null-hypothesis significance tests. Psychological Science, 16, 345–353.
Loftus, G. R. (1996). Psychology will be a much better science when we change the way we analyze data. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 161–171.
Mielke, P. W., & Berry, K. J. (1992). Fisher’s exact probability test for cross-classification tables. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 52, 97–101.
Patefield, W. M. (1981). Algorithm AS159: An efficient method of generating random R X C tables with given row and column totals. Applied Statistics, 30, 91–97.
Rosnow, R. L., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and correlation in effect-size estimation. Psychological Science, 11, 446–453.
Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677–680.
Stigler, S. (1980). Stigler’s law of eponymy. In T. F. Gieryn (Ed.), Science and social structure: A festschrift for Robert K. Merton (pp. 147–157). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
Stuart, A. (1953). The estimation and comparison of strengths of association in contingency tables. Biometrika, 40, 105–110.
Thompson, B. (2002). “Statistical,” “practical,” and “clinical”: How many kinds of significance do counselors need to consider? Journal of Counseling & Development, 80, 64–71.
Vacha-Haase, T., Nilsson, J. E., Reetz, D. R., Lance, T. S., & Thompson, B. (2000). Reporting practices and APA editorial policies regarding statistical significance and effect size. Theory & Psychology, 10, 413–425.
Vaughan, G. M., & Corballis, M. C. (1969). Beyond tests of significance: Estimating strength of effects in selected ANOVA designs. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 204–213.