Effect magnitude: A different focus

By Roger E. Kirk. 2007

101 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/adb3f4756fac0314ff1acbabc77c0d27dcdf7405

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

Effect Size, Confidence Intervals and Statistical Power in Psychological Research (2015, background): “…sample size that is required to obtain an acceptable statistical power (0.80); 2) integrate the results from a series of empirical research studies in a meta-analysis study; 3) complement NHST data, and 4) determine whether research results are significant from a practical standpoint (Kirk, 2007).”
The Meaningfulness of Effect Sizes in Psychological Research: Differences Between Sub-Disciplines and the Impact of Potential Biases (2019, unknown): “By contrast, Richard et al. (2003) reported an unusually small median effect of r = 0.”
Robots or frontline employees? Exploring customers’ attributions of responsibility and stability after service failure or success (2020, background): “In sum, the effects of the agent providing the service (human vs robot) are only significant for the service failure condition and the strength of association can be considered close to a medium association (ω2 5 0.06; Kirk, 2007).”
Avoiding the dark side of positive online consumer reviews: Enhancing reviews' usefulness for high risk-averse travelers (2015, background): “Omega squared results are interpreted as low (ω2 ≤ 0.01), medium (0.01 ω2 0.14), and high (ω2 ≥ 0.14) association (Kirk, 2007).”
A Review of Determinants of and Interventions for Proenvironmental Behaviors in Organizations (2012, methodology): “For the descriptive studies, effect sizes were given qualitative labels according to Rosenthal (1996) and Kirk’s (2007) guidelines.”