Standardized or simple effect size: What should be reported?

British Journal of Psychology - Tập 100 Số 3 - Trang 603-617 - 2009
Thom Baguley1
1Division of Psychology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, UK. [email protected]

Tóm tắt

It is regarded as best practice for psychologists to report effect size when disseminating quantitative research findings. Reporting of effect size in the psychological literature is patchy – though this may be changing – and when reported it is far from clear that appropriate effect size statistics are employed. This paper considers the practice of reporting point estimates of standardized effect size and explores factors such as reliability, range restriction and differences in design that distort standardized effect size unless suitable corrections are employed. For most purposes simple (unstandardized) effect size is more robust and versatile than standardized effect size. Guidelines for deciding what effect size metric to use and how to report it are outlined. Foremost among these are: (i) a preference for simple effect size over standardized effect size, and (ii) the use of confidence intervals to indicate a plausible range of values the effect might take. Deciding on the appropriate effect size statistic to report always requires careful thought and should be influenced by the goals of the researcher, the context of the research and the potential needs of readers.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Abelson R. P., 1995, Statistics as principled argument

American Psychological Association, 2001, Publication manual of the American Psychological Association

10.1016/j.apergo.2004.01.002

10.1075/aicr.26.25bag

10.1177/109442810141003

10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.406

10.1080/02724980343000431

10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80014-3

Cohen J., 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences

10.1207/S15327906MBR3403_2

10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01881.x

DeShon R. P., 2003, Validity generalization: A critical review, 365

10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.170

Fichman M., 1999, Variance explained: Why size doesn't (always) matter, Research in Organizational Behavior, 21, 295

10.1177/001316402236876

10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114229

Fleiss J. L., 1994, The handbook of research synthesis, 245

10.1177/095935439992002

Ghiselli E. E., 1964, Theory of psychological measurement

10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.419

Glass G. V., 1981, Meta‐analysis in social research

10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.594

10.1177/004912418101000203

10.1177/0013164496056005002

10.1198/000313001317098149

Loftus G. R., 2001, Stevens' handbook of experimental psychology, 339

10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.386

10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.105

10.1037/0033-2909.92.3.766

10.1006/ceps.2000.1040

10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.434

10.1037/1082-989X.10.2.178

10.1006/jmla.1999.2650

10.1177/1094428105283192

10.1080/00220970309600879

Rosenthal R., 1994, The handbook of research synthesis, 231

10.1016/S0160-2896(99)00024-0

10.1037/h0027108

10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00210-9

10.1037/0003-066X.54.8.594

Wright D. B., 2006, Handbook of educational psychology, 879

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

British Journal of Psychology

Tập 100 Số 3

603-617

Thông tin tác giả