Literature DB >> 25314367

Correlational effect size benchmarks.

Frank A Bosco1, Herman Aguinis2, Kulraj Singh3, James G Field1, Charles A Pierce4.   

Abstract

Effect size information is essential for the scientific enterprise and plays an increasingly central role in the scientific process. We extracted 147,328 correlations and developed a hierarchical taxonomy of variables reported in Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology from 1980 to 2010 to produce empirical effect size benchmarks at the omnibus level, for 20 common research domains, and for an even finer grained level of generality. Results indicate that the usual interpretation and classification of effect sizes as small, medium, and large bear almost no resemblance to findings in the field, because distributions of effect sizes exhibit tertile partitions at values approximately one-half to one-third those intuited by Cohen (1988). Our results offer information that can be used for research planning and design purposes, such as producing better informed non-nil hypotheses and estimating statistical power and planning sample size accordingly. We also offer information useful for understanding the relative importance of the effect sizes found in a particular study in relationship to others and which research domains have advanced more or less, given that larger effect sizes indicate a better understanding of a phenomenon. Also, our study offers information about research domains for which the investigation of moderating effects may be more fruitful and provide information that is likely to facilitate the implementation of Bayesian analysis. Finally, our study offers information that practitioners can use to evaluate the relative effectiveness of various types of interventions. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25314367     DOI: 10.1037/a0038047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Psychol        ISSN: 0021-9010


  36 in total

1.  Effects of the Values and Options in Cancer Care Communication Intervention on Personal Caregiver Experiences of Cancer Care and Bereavement Outcomes.

Authors:  Paul R Duberstein; Paul K Maciejewski; Ronald M Epstein; Joshua J Fenton; Benjamin Chapman; Sally A Norton; Michael Hoerger; Marsha N Wittink; Daniel J Tancredi; Guibo Xing; Supriya Mohile; Richard L Kravitz; Holly G Prigerson
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2019-06-25       Impact factor: 2.947

2.  The Happy Culture: A Theoretical, Meta-Analytic, and Empirical Review of the Relationship Between Culture and Wealth and Subjective Well-Being.

Authors:  Piers Steel; Vasyl Taras; Krista Uggerslev; Frank Bosco
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Rev       Date:  2017-08-03

3.  The New Statistics for Neuroscience Majors: Thinking in Effect Sizes.

Authors:  Robert J Calin-Jageman
Journal:  J Undergrad Neurosci Educ       Date:  2018-06-15

Review 4.  Behavior change interventions: the potential of ontologies for advancing science and practice.

Authors:  Kai R Larsen; Susan Michie; Eric B Hekler; Bryan Gibson; Donna Spruijt-Metz; David Ahern; Heather Cole-Lewis; Rebecca J Bartlett Ellis; Bradford Hesse; Richard P Moser; Jean Yi
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2016-08-01

5.  Childhood growth in math and reading differentially predicts adolescent non-ability-based confidence: An examination in the SECCYD.

Authors:  Randi L Vogt; Joey T Cheng; Daniel A Briley
Journal:  Learn Individ Differ       Date:  2020-10-04

6.  Organizational Context in General and Special Education: An Exploratory Investigation to Describe the Perspective of School Leaders.

Authors:  Stephanie A Moore; Rebecca Landa; Gazi Azad
Journal:  Glob Implement Res Appl       Date:  2021-10-01

Review 7.  Computational approaches and machine learning for individual-level treatment predictions.

Authors:  Martin P Paulus; Wesley K Thompson
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2019-05-27       Impact factor: 4.530

8.  The Relationship Between Perceived Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee-Related Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Agnieszka Paruzel; Hannah J P Klug; Günter W Maier
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-07-08

9.  Denouncing the use of field-specific effect size distributions to inform magnitude.

Authors:  Emily Panzarella; Nataly Beribisky; Robert A Cribbie
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 2.984

10.  Analytical power calculations for structural equation modeling: A tutorial and Shiny app.

Authors:  Suzanne Jak; Terrence D Jorgensen; Mathilde G E Verdam; Frans J Oort; Louise Elffers
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2020-11-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.