New Effect Size Rules of Thumb

By Shlomo S. Sawilowsky. 2009

3,040 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Recommendations to expand Cohen’s (1988) rules of thumb for interpreting effect sizes are given to include very small, very large, and huge effect sizes. The reasons for the expansion, and implications for designing Monte Carlo studies, are discussed.

Subfields: Education, Management Science and Operations Research, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a5d0738e5163cbba4953e12f3bc60651e3607804

How researchers see this paper

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

In Education

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies (2018, positive): “The magnitude of the overall effect size was within the small to medium range for effect sizes (Sawilowsky 2009).”
Gender Differences in Connection to Nature, Outdoor Preferences, and Nature-Based Recreation Among College Students in Brazil and the United States (2020, positive): “Following Sawilowsky (2009), Cohen’s d is interpreted as: 0.01¼ very small, 0.2¼ small, 0.5¼medium, 0.8¼ large, 1.2¼ very large, and 2.0¼ huge.”
Does a Knowledge Generation Approach to Learning Benefit Students? A Systematic Review of Research on the Science Writing Heuristic Approach (2020, positive): “To interpret the effect sizes, we followed the guidelines for magnitudes of d = 0.01 to 2.0 suggested by Cohen (1988) and Sawilowsky (2009).”
Feature Extraction and Selection for Myoelectric Control Based on Wearable EMG Sensors (2018, positive): “For interpretation and consistency, an effect size of 0.2 equates to a small effect, 0.5 equates to a medium effect, 0.8 equates to a large effect, 1.2 equates to a very large effect, and larger than 2.0 equates to a huge effect [50,51].”