Abstract

The increased use of effect sizes in single studies and meta-analyses raises new questions about statistical inference. Choice of an effect-size index can have a substantial impact on the interpretation of findings. The authors demonstrate the issue by focusing on two popular effect-size measures, the correlation coefficient and the standardized mean difference (e.g., Cohen's d or Hedges's g), both of which can be used when one variable is dichotomous and the other is quantitative. Although the indices are often practically interchangeable, differences in sensitivity to the base rate or variance of the dichotomous variable can alter conclusions about the magnitude of an effect depending on which statistic is used. Because neither statistic is universally superior, researchers should explicitly consider the importance of base rates to formulate correct inferences and justify the selection of a primary effect-size statistic.

Keywords

StatisticsStatisticEconometricsVariance (accounting)MathematicsInferenceCorrelationSample size determinationStatistical inferenceVariable (mathematics)Computer scienceEconomics

MeSH Terms

Data InterpretationStatisticalHumansModelsPsychologicalPsychologySample Size

Affiliated Institutions

Related Publications

Generalized Collinearity Diagnostics

Abstract Working in the context of the linear model y = Xβ + ε, we generalize the concept of variance inflation as a measure of collinearity to a subset of parameters in β (deno...

1992 Journal of the American Statistical A... 1512 citations

Publication Info

Year
2006
Type
article
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
386-401
Citations
397
Access
Closed

Social Impact

Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions

Citation Metrics

397
OpenAlex
31
Influential
278
CrossRef

Cite This

Robert E. McGrath, Gregory J. Meyer (2006). When effect sizes disagree: The case of r and d.. Psychological Methods , 11 (4) , 386-401. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.11.4.386

Identifiers

DOI
10.1037/1082-989x.11.4.386
PMID
17154753

Data Quality

Data completeness: 81%