Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers
Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069
复制
发表时间：
2016-11-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Szodorai, Eva T.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gignac, Gilles E.;Szodorai, Eva T.
个体差异研究人员经常报告他们感兴趣的变量之间的皮尔逊相关性。Cohen(1988)为解释相关性的大小以及估计威力提供了指导方针。具体来说，建议将r=0.10、r=030和r=0.50分别视为小、中和大。然而，科恩的效应大小指南主要是基于本质上的定性印象，而不是对数据的系统、定量分析。因此，这项调查的目的是开发一个先前发表的元分析衍生相关性的大样本，以便从经验的角度评估科恩的指导方针。基于708个元分析得出的相关性，第25、50和75个百分位数分别对应于0.11、0.19和0.29的相关性。根据这一结果，科恩的相关指南过于迫切，因为
Individual differences researchers very commonly report Pearson correlations between their variables of interest. Cohen (1988) provided guidelines for the purposes of interpreting the magnitude of a correlation, as well as estimating power. Specifically, r = 0.10, r = 030, and r = 0.50 were recommended to be considered small, medium, and large in magnitude, respectively. However, Cohen's effect size guidelines were based principally upon an essentially qualitative impression, rather than a systematic, quantitative analysis of data. Consequently, the purpose of this investigation was to develop a large sample of previously published meta-analytically derived correlations which would allow for an evaluation of Cohen's guidelines from an empirical perspective. Based on 708 meta-analytically derived correlations, the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles corresponded to correlations of 0.11, 0.19, and 0.29, respectively. Based on the results, it is suggested that Cohen's correlation guidelines are too exigent, as