How to calculate effect sizes from published research: A simplified methodology

By W. Thalheimer, Samantha R. Cook. 2002

756 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d7f0c3a171ffd6bad4297feeb708a2d79e06da8b

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

Are Health Behavior Change Interventions That Use Online Social Networks Effective? A Systematic Review (2014, unknown): “45 are “huge” [21].”
Treatment recommendations for psoriatic arthritis (2008, background): “Wherever possible, effect sizes were calculated to quantify the extent of efficacy or toxicity. Effect size is the mean difference in effect between treatment and control, divided by the standard deviation of the difference.”
The effects of part-task and whole-task instructional approaches on acquisition and transfer of a complex cognitive skill (2009, background): “The effect size estimate was d = 1.14, indicating a very large effect (Thalheimer and Cook 2002).”
Exercise and Children’s Intelligence, Cognition, and Academic Achievement (2008, methodology): “1Unless otherwise noted, Effect Sizes (ES) provided in this section were calculated as recommended by Thalheimer and Cook (2002).”
The Effect of 7E Learning Cycle on Learning in Science Teaching: A meta-Analysis Study (2016, methodology): “245 respectively and were considered to have large and very large magnitudes (when converted to Hedges’s g) according to Thalheimer and Cook’s (2002) guidelines.”
Effectiveness of positive psychology interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2020, methodology): “If more than one instrument was used to assess the same outcome variable, effect sizes were averaged, so that there was one effect size for each outcome variable (Thalheimer & Cook, 2002).”
LEARNED ATTENTION IN ADULT LANGUAGE ACQUISITION (2011, background): “…indicates a small effect; d ≈ 0.25 might refl ect educational signifi cance (i.e., something was learned); d ≈ 0.5 represents a moderate effect that is practically or clinically signifi cant (i.e., something really changed); d ≥ 0.8 indicates a large effect (Cohen, 1992 ; Thalheimer & Cook, 2002 ).”
Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. (2008, methodology): “We converted descriptive statistics, t-test estimates, or F-test estimates into the effect size Cohens d (ie, mean difference between cell means in standard score form) using Thalheimer and Cooks (2002) software program, which was based on Rosnow and Rosenthals (1996) and Rosnow, Rosenthal, and Rubi”
Instructing Parents to Use Dialogic Reading Strategies with Preschool Children (2007, methodology): “First, we assessed differences between groups at each time point using Cohen’s d from t-tests (Thalheimer & Cook, 2002).”
Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions Across the World: (Under) Investing in the Very Young (2010, methodology): “For each effect size within a contrast we calculate ohen’s D using Thalheimer and Cook’s (2002) method hich takes into account sample sizes for treatment and ontrol groups whenever means and standard deviations f control and treatment groups, t-tests, F-tests, or mean nd standard errors of control a”
Instruction Based on Self-Explanation (2010, methodology): “…by dividing sample mean differences by pooled variances using either stated means and standard deviations, t-test values or F-test values according to the formulas defined in Thalheimer and Cook (2002) and based on the procedures originally detailed by Rosnow and Rosenthal (1996) and Cohen (1992).”
The learning effects of computer simulations in science education (2012, background): “Even though Thalheimer and Cook (2002) offer ﬁ ve different ways of calculating Cohen ’ s d , the data from 19 studiesdidnotallowforitscalculation,whichmakesdrawingconclusionsatameta-analyticlevelunwarranted.”