A Comparative Investigation of Confidence Intervals for IndependentVariables in Linear Regression.

In linear regression, the most appropriate standardized effect size for individual independent variables having an arbitrary metric remains open to debate, despite researchers typically reporting a standardized regression coefficient. Alternative standardized measures include the semipartial correlation, the improvement in the squared multiple correlation, and the squared partial correlation. No arguments based on either theoretical or statistical grounds for preferring one of these standardized measures have been mounted in the literature. Using a Monte Carlo simulation, the performance of interval estimators for these effect-size measures was compared in a 5-way factorial design. Formal statistical design methods assessed both the accuracy and robustness of the four interval estimators. The coverage probability of a large-sample confidence interval for the semipartial correlation coefficient derived from Aloe and Becker was highly accurate and robust in 98% of instances. It was better in small samples than the Yuan-Chan large-sample confidence interval for a standardized regression coefficient. It was also consistently better than both a bootstrap confidence interval for the improvement in the squared multiple correlation and a noncentral interval for the squared partial correlation.