The essential guide to effect sizes : statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results

By P. Ellis. 2010

2,166 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/33bb1d3c9d641c3cb8cf8b133d178c9e9854f9f9

How researchers see this paper

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

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

A meta-analysis of intercropping in Africa: impacts on crop yield, farmer income, and integrated pest management effects (2017, methodology): “This software runs an adjustment of the effect sizes for sampling errors, which is particularly important for a collection of studies with sample sizes (Ellis, 2010).”
Assessing statistical aspects of test fairness with structural equation modelling (2013, methodology): “The realization that statistical significance does not directly measure effect size has motivated the development of various methods for estimating effect size apart from statistical significance (e.g., Ellis, 2010; Grissom & Kim, 2011).”
Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs (2013, methodology): “To report this analysis, researchers could write in the procedure section that: “Twenty participants evaluated either Movie 1 (n = 10) or Movie 2 (n = 10). Participants reported higher evaluations of Movie 1 (M = 8.7, SD = 0.82) than Movie 2 (M = 7.7, SD = 0.95), F(1, 18) = 6.34, p = 0.022, η(2)p = ”
Relational and Identity Processes in Communication: A Contextual and Meta-Analytical Review of Communication Accommodation Theory (2014, methodology): “We followed established guidelines for effect size analysis (Allen, 2009; Ellis, 2010; Hunter & Schmidt, 1990; Lipsey & Wilson, 2000).”
Local Standards for Sample Size at CHI (2016, methodology): “For example, using solely local standards in quantitative work is considered ineffective by statisticians [14; 15].”
The Meaningfulness of Effect Sizes in Psychological Research: Differences Between Sub-Disciplines and the Impact of Potential Biases (2019, neutral): “The effect size measures developed in recent decades (see, e.g., Kirk, 1996, 2007; Ellis, 2010; Fritz et al., 2012) have been used to provide a direct answer to the research questions that Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 April 2019 | Volume 10 | Article 813 motivate a study (see…”
Correlational effect size benchmarks. (2015, background): “On the other hand, journal editors have expressed the need for contextualized benchmarks for the purpose of evaluating substantive significance (Ellis, 2010a), and such benchmarks also play a critical role in science-based practice (Hill et al., 2008).”
Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers (2016, background): “Additionally, Ellis (2010) recommended that researchers interpret effect sizes specifically in the context of their own investigation, in the first instance, whichmay involve consultation of unstandardized effects, rather than standardized effects.”