The Relationship Between Sample Sizes and Effect Sizes in Systematic Reviews in Education

By R. Slavin, Dewi Smith. 2009

335 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d8cbf025bac901c92aee1dd6c592134f8b5a229a

How researchers see this paper

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

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

The Role of Collaboration, Computer Use, Learning Environments, and Supporting Strategies in CSCL: A Meta-Analysis (2018, result): “…it seems that studies with 100 participants reported better effects of interventions, while studies with ⩾ 250 participants produced small mean ES s. Research has shown that studies with small sample sizes generally report larger ES s than studies with large sample sizes (Slavin & Smith, 2009).”
Mind-Set Interventions Are a Scalable Treatment for Academic Underachievement (2015, background): “…steps and reducing the “superrealization bias” (Cronbach et al., 1980) that can lead to large effect sizes in trials with small, highly controlled samples (Ioannidis, Cappelleri, & Lau, 1998; Slavin & Smith, 2009), we expected to find more modest but more realistic and broadly reliable effects.”
The potential of digital tools to enhance mathematics and science learning in secondary schools: A context-specific meta-analysis (2020, background): “Empirically, studies with smaller sample sizes produce larger effects (Chen et al., 2018; Cheung & Slavin, 2013; Slavin and Smith, 2009).”
Experimental Evaluations of Elementary Science Programs: A Best-Evidence Synthesis (2014, result): “Except for the two BrainPOP evaluations, the sample sizes are small, and small studies tend to have larger effect sizes than do ones with large samples (Slavin & Smith, 2009).”
Identity, Critical Agency, and Engineering: An Affective Model for Predicting Engineering as a Career Choice (2016, background): “However, as sample size increases above 2,000, the effect sizes become more reliable and less likely to be artifacts of other disturbances (Slavin & Smith, 2009).”
How Methodological Features Affect Effect Sizes in Education (2016, background): “Slavin and Smith (2009) found substantial differences in effect sizes between reading and math studies with large and small sample sizes, with an average effect size of +0.44 for studies with fewer than 50 subjects, +0.29 for studies with 51 to 100 subjects, and +0.09 for studies with sample sizes…”
Interpreting Effect Sizes of Education Interventions (2020, background): “One of the most consistent findings in the education literature is that effects decrease when smaller targeted programs are taken to scale (Slavin & Smith, 2009).”
Sexual violence, institutional betrayal, and psychological outcomes for LGB college students. (2016, methodology): “Effect sizes were calculated for each of these tests using Cohen’s d, which is less affected by sample size or sample size differences (Slavin & Smith, 2009).”
When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects (2019, background): “…Published online by Cambridge University Press significant effect and it takes a larger effect size to achieve statistical significance in a small study than a large one, small studies may be more likely to be published if their effects are large (Slavin & Smith, 2009).”