A probability-based measure of effect size: robustness to base rates and other factors
- PMID: 18331151
- DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.13.1.19
A probability-based measure of effect size: robustness to base rates and other factors
Abstract
Calculating and reporting appropriate measures of effect size are becoming standard practice in psychological research. One of the most common scenarios encountered involves the comparison of 2 groups, which includes research designs that are experimental (e.g., random assignment to treatment vs. placebo conditions) and nonexperimental (e.g., testing for gender differences). Familiar measures such as the standardized mean difference (d) or the point-biserial correlation (rpb) characterize the magnitude of the difference between groups, but these effect size measures are sensitive to a number of additional influences. For example, R. E. McGrath and G. J. Meyer (2006) showed that rpb is sensitive to sample base rates, and extending their analysis to situations of unequal variances reveals that d is, too. The probability-based measure A, the nonparametric generalization of what K. O. McGraw and S. P. Wong (1992) called the common language effect size statistic, is insensitive to base rates and more robust to several other factors (e.g., extreme scores, nonlinear transformations). In addition to its excellent generalizability across contexts, A is easy to understand and can be obtained from standard computer output or through simple hand calculations.
Similar articles
-
When effect sizes disagree: the case of r and d.Psychol Methods. 2006 Dec;11(4):386-401. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.386. Psychol Methods. 2006. PMID: 17154753
-
Useful effect size interpretations for single case research.Behav Ther. 2007 Mar;38(1):95-105. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2006.05.002. Epub 2006 Dec 8. Behav Ther. 2007. PMID: 17292698
-
Estimating standardized linear contrasts of means with desired precision.Psychol Methods. 2009 Mar;14(1):1-5. doi: 10.1037/a0014270. Psychol Methods. 2009. PMID: 19271844
-
Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists.Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2007 Nov;82(4):591-605. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.00027.x. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2007. PMID: 17944619 Review.
-
Interaction effects and subgroup analyses in clinical trials: more than meets the eye?J Eval Clin Pract. 2008 Oct;14(5):919-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2007.00872.x. Epub 2008 Mar 24. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008. PMID: 18373582 Review.
Cited by
-
Youth recidivism: youth self-report matters.Front Psychol. 2024 Jan 4;14:1208317. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1208317. eCollection 2023. Front Psychol. 2024. PMID: 38239481 Free PMC article.
-
Analysis of the Relationship among Cognitive Impairment, Nutritional Indexes and the Clinical Course among COVID-19 Patients Discharged from Hospital-Preliminary Report.Nutrients. 2022 Apr 11;14(8):1580. doi: 10.3390/nu14081580. Nutrients. 2022. PMID: 35458142 Free PMC article.
-
An Empathy-Driven, Conversational Artificial Intelligence Agent (Wysa) for Digital Mental Well-Being: Real-World Data Evaluation Mixed-Methods Study.JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Nov 23;6(11):e12106. doi: 10.2196/12106. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018. PMID: 30470676 Free PMC article.
-
Polygenic impact of common genetic risk loci for Alzheimer's disease on cerebral blood flow in young individuals.Sci Rep. 2019 Jan 24;9(1):467. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-36820-3. Sci Rep. 2019. PMID: 30679549 Free PMC article.
-
An illusion of predictability in scientific results: Even experts confuse inferential uncertainty and outcome variability.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 Aug 15;120(33):e2302491120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2302491120. Epub 2023 Aug 9. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023. PMID: 37556500 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
