Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Physical Sciences and Mathematics
New Effect Size Rules Of Thumb, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
New Effect Size Rules Of Thumb, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
Theoretical and Behavioral Foundations of Education Faculty Publications
Recommendations to expand Cohen’s (1988) rules of thumb for interpreting effect sizes are given to include very small, very large, and huge effect sizes. The reasons for the expansion, and implications for designing Monte Carlo studies, are discussed.
You Think You’Ve Got Trivials?, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
You Think You’Ve Got Trivials?, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
Theoretical and Behavioral Foundations of Education Faculty Publications
Effect sizes are important for power analysis and meta-analysis. This has led to a debate on reporting effect sizes for studies that are not statistically significant. Contrary and supportive evidence has been offered on the basis of Monte Carlo methods. In this article, clarifications are given regarding what should be simulated to determine the possible effects of piecemeal publishing trivial effect sizes.
Trivials: The Birth, Sale, And Final Production Of Meta-Analysis, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
Trivials: The Birth, Sale, And Final Production Of Meta-Analysis, Shlomo S. Sawilowsky
Theoretical and Behavioral Foundations of Education Faculty Publications
The structure of the first invited debate in JMASM is to present a target article (Sawilowsky, 2003), provide an opportunity for a response (Roberts & Henson, 2003), and to follow with independent comments from noted scholars in the field (Knapp, 2003; Levin & Robinson, 2003). In this rejoinder, I provide a correction and a clarification in an effort to bring some closure to the debate. The intension, however, is not to rehash previously made points, even where I disagree with the response of Roberts & Henson (2003).