Persons as Effect Sizes

IF 15.6 1区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science Pub Date : 2020-10-09 DOI:10.1177/2515245920922982

J. Grice, Eliwid Medellin, Ian Jones, Samantha Horvath, Hailey McDaniel, Chance O’lansen, Meggie Baker

{"title":"Persons as Effect Sizes","authors":"J. Grice, Eliwid Medellin, Ian Jones, Samantha Horvath, Hailey McDaniel, Chance O’lansen, Meggie Baker","doi":"10.1177/2515245920922982","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Traditional indices of effect size are designed to answer questions about average group differences, associations between variables, and relative risk. For many researchers, an additional, important question is, “How many people in my study behaved or responded in a manner consistent with theoretical expectation?” We show how the answer to this question can be computed and reported as a straightforward percentage for a wide variety of study designs. This percentage essentially treats persons as an effect size, and it can easily be understood by scientists, professionals, and laypersons alike. For instance, imagine that in addition to d or η2, a researcher reports that 80% of participants matched theoretical expectation. No statistical training is required to understand the basic meaning of this percentage. By analyzing recently published studies, we show how computing this percentage can reveal novel patterns within data that provide insights for extending and developing the theory under investigation.","PeriodicalId":55645,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science","volume":"3 1","pages":"443 - 455"},"PeriodicalIF":15.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2515245920922982","citationCount":"44","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920922982","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 44

Abstract

Traditional indices of effect size are designed to answer questions about average group differences, associations between variables, and relative risk. For many researchers, an additional, important question is, “How many people in my study behaved or responded in a manner consistent with theoretical expectation?” We show how the answer to this question can be computed and reported as a straightforward percentage for a wide variety of study designs. This percentage essentially treats persons as an effect size, and it can easily be understood by scientists, professionals, and laypersons alike. For instance, imagine that in addition to d or η2, a researcher reports that 80% of participants matched theoretical expectation. No statistical training is required to understand the basic meaning of this percentage. By analyzing recently published studies, we show how computing this percentage can reveal novel patterns within data that provide insights for extending and developing the theory under investigation.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

人作为效应量

传统的效应大小指数被设计用来回答关于平均组差异、变量之间的关联和相对风险的问题。对许多研究人员来说，另一个重要的问题是，“在我的研究中，有多少人的行为或反应与理论预期一致?”我们展示了如何计算这个问题的答案，并在各种研究设计中以直接的百分比报告。这个百分比基本上把人当作一个效应量，它很容易被科学家、专业人士和外行人理解。例如，假设除了d或η2之外，研究人员报告说80%的参与者符合理论预期。不需要统计学训练就能理解这个百分比的基本含义。通过分析最近发表的研究，我们展示了计算这个百分比如何揭示数据中的新模式，为扩展和发展正在研究的理论提供见解。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science Multiple-

CiteScore

21.20

自引率

0.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： In 2021, Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science will undergo a transition to become an open access journal. This journal focuses on publishing innovative developments in research methods, practices, and conduct within the field of psychological science. It embraces a wide range of areas and topics and encourages the integration of methodological and analytical questions. The aim of AMPPS is to bring the latest methodological advances to researchers from various disciplines, even those who are not methodological experts. Therefore, the journal seeks submissions that are accessible to readers with different research interests and that represent the diverse research trends within the field of psychological science. The types of content that AMPPS welcomes include articles that communicate advancements in methods, practices, and metascience, as well as empirical scientific best practices. Additionally, tutorials, commentaries, and simulation studies on new techniques and research tools are encouraged. The journal also aims to publish papers that bring advances from specialized subfields to a broader audience. Lastly, AMPPS accepts Registered Replication Reports, which focus on replicating important findings from previously published studies. Overall, the transition of Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science to an open access journal aims to increase accessibility and promote the dissemination of new developments in research methods and practices within the field of psychological science.