Standardized or simple effect size: What should be reported?
Standardized or simple effect size: What should be reported?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1348/000712608x377117
复制
发表时间：
2009-08-01
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Baguley, Thom
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Baguley, Thom
心理学家在传播定量研究结果时报告效应大小被认为是最佳做法。心理学文献中对效应量的报道是不完整的--尽管这可能会发生变化--而且在报道时，还远远不清楚是否采用了适当的效应量统计。本文认为，报告点估计的标准化效应量的做法，并探讨因素，如可靠性，范围限制和设计的差异，扭曲标准化效应量，除非采用适当的校正。在大多数情况下，简单（非标准化）效应量比标准化效应量更稳健和通用。指导方针，决定使用什么样的效果大小指标，以及如何报告它概述。其中最重要的是：（i）对简单效应量的偏好超过标准化效应量，以及（ii）使用置信区间来表示效应可能采取的合理值范围。决定报告的适当效应量统计量总是需要仔细考虑，并应受到研究者的目标，研究背景和读者的潜在需求的影响。
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.