Communicating Judgments About Practical Significance: Effect Size, Confidence Intervals and Odds Ratios

154 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

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

Specificity and the Cognitive Hierarchy: Value Orientations and the Acceptability of Urban Wildlife Management Actions (2006, background): “Multiple Rs of this magnitude reflect typical to substantial effects (Vaske et al. 2002).”
Hunter Perceptions of Similarity and Trust in Wildlife Agencies and Personal Risk Associated with Chronic Wasting Disease (2008, methodology): “( 2002 ), these effect sizes suggest that the strength of any differences between respondents and nonrespondents was “weak” or “minimal.”
The Potential for Conflict Index: A Graphic Approach to Practical Significance of Human Dimensions Research (2003, background): “Statistical significance is not necessarily synonymous with “practical significance” (Vaske et al., 2002).”
Understanding Meta-Analysis: A Review of the Methodological Literature (2008, methodology): “Meta analyses performed across all studies (i.e., those with and those without statistical significance) will more accurately reflect the strength of the relationship (Gliner et al., 2001; Schmitt, 1996; Vaske et al., 2002).”