An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers.

By C. Ferguson. 2009

3,616 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/de96cb8ebe6119b28bb041bb3c57ccadc32a3997

How researchers see this paper

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

In General Health Professions

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Who is The Fairest One of All? How Evolution Guides Peer and Media Influences on Female Body Dissatisfaction (2011, background): “Such effects are small (Cohen, 1992) and are below the r .2 cutoff for practical significance suggested by some researchers (e.g., Ferguson, 2009; Franzblau, 1958; Lipsey, 1998).”
Affect and self-esteem as mediators between trait resilience and psychological adjustment (2014, methodology): “To assess the variance in life satisfaction and psychological distress accounted for by the predictor (trait resilience) and mediators (affect and self-esteem), we compared the effect sizes indexed by R between the models with and without mediators (Ferguson, 2009).”
TIMED AND UNTIMED GRAMMATICALITY JUDGMENTS MEASURE DISTINCT TYPES OF KNOWLEDGE (2015, background): “Ferguson ( 2009 ) suggested that an OR of 3.0 (or 0.33 when the baseline is the more frequent pattern) is a moderate effect, whereas an OR of 4.0 or 0.25 represents a strong effect.”
The online dating romance scam: causes and consequences of victimhood (2014, background): “Ferguson (2009) tentatively suggests that the recommended minimum effect size for regarding effects found in social science data as ‘practically’ significant would be consistent with an odds ratio of 2.0 a long way above the values found here.”
The Other Half of the Story: Effect Size Analysis in Quantitative Research (2013, background): “Effect sizes are abstract statistics that experience biases from sampling effort and quality and do not differentiate among relationships of similar magnitude that may actually have more or less practical significance (Coe, 2002; Nakagawa and Cuthill, 2007; Ferguson, 2009).”
Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review (2013, background): “Based on previously articulated conventions, the associations between marital quality and health endpoints were generally small in magnitude (less than r .20; Ferguson, 2009a).”
In the eye of the beholder: Thin-ideal media affects some, but not most, viewers in a meta-analytic review of body dissatisfaction in women and men. (2013, background): “Such effects are small (Cohen, 1992) and are below the r .2 cutoff for practical significance suggested by some researchers (e.g., Ferguson, 2009; Franzblau, 1958; Lipsey, 1998).”
The significance of insecure and disorganized attachment for children's internalizing symptoms: a meta-analytic study. (2012, background): “…the effect is trivial or small, it is important to note that the interpretation of the size of combined effects remains a controversial issue (e.g., Ferguson, 2009; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; McCartney & Rosenthal, 2000) and that the interpretation is dependent on a myriad of theoretical and practical…”
Interpreting effect sizes when controlling for stability effects in longitudinal autoregressive models: Implications for psychological science (2015, background): “For example, Ferguson (2009) suggests that for both bivariate r and b, .20 ¼ small, .50 ¼ medium, and .80 ¼ large.”
Variables Associated With Achievement in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses (2017, background): “However, the comparison of two ranks or of two effect sizes is not straightforward and needs to account for a number of questions (Coe, 2002; Ferguson, 2009).”
Validity of the international physical activity questionnaire short form (IPAQ-SF): A systematic review (2011, methodology): “Using Ferguson’s [45] guideline for effect size interpretation for the r, values of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 were described as small, moderate, and large effects respectively.”
Extraneous perceptual information interferes with children's acquisition of mathematical knowledge (2013, methodology): “To compare failure rates across the two experiments, the risk difference of failing to learn in the extraneous information condition versus failing to learn in the no extraneous information condition was used as a measure of effect size (see Ferguson, 2009).”
Relationships between bullying behaviours and the Dark Triad: A study with adults (2012, background): “Ferguson (2009) recommends that for Social Science data an effect size of .”