Effect-Size Measures and Meta-Analytic Thinking in Counseling Psychology Research

By R. Henson. 2006

194 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/20b92405ef3c20d524f2bff9e60224845801bbbb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Treating Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficients as Data in Counseling Research (2006, unknown): “…(i.e., –.188/ (.79).5 = –.21, p < .05; effect size = .04) is significant, and the effect size is small, which suggests that reduced power because of inadequate reliability attenuated the observed relationship between the two variables (for more on effect sizes, see Henson, 2006 [this issue]).”
Construct Validation in Counseling Psychology Research (2006, background): “…may also be interested in studying attributes of settings (e.g., casual vs. formal counseling setting), groups (e.g., cultural norms and values), studies (e.g., strong vs. weak research design as a moderator of effect size in meta-analysis; see Henson, 2006 [TCP, special issue, part 1]), and so on.”
A Brief Guide to Structural Equation Modeling (2006, background): “Second, as with most statistics, large sample sizes increase power, resulting in significance with small effect sizes (Henson, 2006 [this issue]).”
Guidelines for Meta-Analyses of Counseling Psychology Research (2006, methodology): “The two main families of effect sizes commonly used in meta-analyses are r and d (Henson, 2006).”
Advanced Applications of Structural Equation Modeling in Counseling Psychology Research (2006, methodology): “Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a data-analytic technique increasing in popularity during the past several years (Martens, 2005; Steiger, 2001; Weston & Gore, 2006 [TCP, special issue, part 1]; for other techniques in this special issue, see Helms, Henze, Sass, & Mifsud, 2006 [TCP, special iss”
Meta-analysis in Second Language Research: Choices and Challenges (2010, result): “and (e) whether size and patterns of the effects actually found in meta-analyses conform with theoretically expected predictions (Henson, 2006; Kirk, 1996; Kline, 2009).”
Considering Culturally Relevant Parenting Practices in Intervention Development and Adaptation (2007, methodology): “We used η(2) as a measure of effect size appropriate for analyses of Group × Time interactions (Henson, 2006).”
Effect size measures for mediation models: quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. (2011, unknown): “…confidence intervals for effect sizes because the real interest lies not in the estimated value but in the population value (Balluerka, Gómez, & Hidalgo, 2005; Bird, 2002; Cumming & Finch, 2001; Fidler & Thompson, 2001; Henson, 2006; Kelley, 2007a; Kirk, 1996; Smithson, 2001; Thompson, 2002, 2007).”
On effect size. (2012, background): “Effect size has often been defined relative to the value of the null hypothesis for a corresponding NHST (Berry & Mielke, 2002; Henson, 2006; Kirk, 1996, 2002).”
Factor Analysis in Counseling Psychology Research, Training, and Practice (2006, methodology): “The analyst first pools correlations among variables via standard meta-analytic procedures (see Henson, 2006 [this issue]; Quintana & Minami, in press [TCP special issue, part 2).”
Burnout, Stress, and Direct Student Services Among School Counselors (2016, methodology): “The researchers deemed the structural model as suitable with these data despite the significant chi-square (Henson, 2006; Kline, 2011; Weston & Gore, 2006).”
A Comprehensive Review of Effect Size Reporting and Interpreting Practices in Academic Journals in Education and Psychology. (2010, background): “Meta-analytic assessment does not overemphasize the outcomes of statistical tests in individual studies (Kline, 2004); instead, it emphasizes the need to explicitly design and place the studies in the context of the effects of prior research, and the reporting and interpreting effect size provide a ”