Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients.

By J. Hemphill. American Psychologist, 2003

1,053 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5a839d7fc5a82873f330de903857ee457362d7fe

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers (2016, methodology): “Hemphill (2003) ersity of Western Australia, 35 ). t, however, it is implied that refpositive values (i.e., absolute found that that one third of the correlations were b0.”
Testing Predictions From Personality Neuroscience: Brain Structure and the Big Five (2010, background): “24 (Hemphill, 2003), and we aimed to detect any effect larger than half of all published effects.”
The Association of Cognitive Ability with Right–Wing Ideological Attitudes and Prejudice: A Meta–Analytic Review (2015, methodology): “Based on an analysis of meta-analysis in psychological research, Hemphill (2003) recommended interpreting effect sizes of .10, .20 and .30 as small, moderate and large effects, respectively, to better reflect effect sizes in psychology per se.”
Portrait of a narcissist: Manifestations of narcissism in physical appearance ☆ (2008, result): “This correlation (r = .25, p .01) was significant and moderate in size (Hemphill, 2003), demonstrating that observers' ratings had considerable accuracy .”
Burnout and Wellbeing: Testing the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory in New Zealand Teachers (2008, background): “In line with predictions, all three burnout sub-dimensions as well as the general burnout score were negatively correlated to the wellbeing index, school connection and perceived health (see Table 1). These correlations were found to be low to moderate in terms of effect size (Cohen 1988; Hemphill ”
Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire (2005, result): “The correlation between the Creative Evaluation score (sum of artists’ ratings) and the CAQ was strong and positive, exceeding that reported in 95% of social science research reports ( Hemphill, 2003 ).”
Effect Size, Confidence Intervals and Statistical Power in Psychological Research (2015, methodology): “Similar to the d value, Cohen established r = .10 or more to be a small effect size; r = .30 or more to be a medium effect size; and r > .50 to be a large effect size (Hemphill, 2003).”
Personality and language use in self-narratives. (2009, background): “These effects thus appear to be moderate in size when left uncorrected, but emerge as strong effects when correcting for reduced reliability (Hemphill, 2003).”
Circadian preferences and personality traits: A meta‐analysis (2010, background): “It has been previously suggested that one may consider r effect sizes of<.2 as small, .2–.3 as medium or moderate, and>.30 as large (Hemphill, 2003).”
Personality-driven situation experience, contact, and construal: How people’s personality traits predict characteristics of their situations in daily life (2015, background): “It is important to recognize, though, that discussions over which effect sizes are “small,” “medium,” or “large” are largely, arbitrary (see Hemphill, 2003, p. 79).”
The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A meta-analytic review (2014, unknown): “For example, Hemphill (2003) reanalyzed two extensive summaries of the psychological literature (Lipsey & Wilson, 1993; Meyer et al., 2001) and found that Cohen's benchmark for a large effect size corresponded to the 89th and 97th percentile, respectively, of studies included.”
Much Ado About Something: Violent Video Game Effects and a School of Red Herring: Reply to Ferguson and Kilburn (2010) (2010, methodology): “For this reason Hemphill (2003) recommended a reconceptualization of effect size, in which r .1 is small, r .2 is medium, and r .3 is large.”
Correlational effect size benchmarks. (2015, background): “Indeed, as Hemphill (2003) stated, “Large and substantive reviews of the psychological research literature undoubtedly would reveal the importance of having different sets of . . . guidelines for different areas of investigation” (p. 79).”