• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Frontiers in Public Health >The Meaningfulness of Effect Sizes in Psychological Research: Differences Between Sub-Disciplines and the Impact of Potential Biases
【2h】

The Meaningfulness of Effect Sizes in Psychological Research: Differences Between Sub-Disciplines and the Impact of Potential Biases

机译：心理学研究中效应大小的意义：子学科之间的差异和潜在偏见的影响

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务，本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文，但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁，仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况，如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Effect sizes are the currency of psychological research. They quantify the results of a study to answer the research question and are used to calculate statistical power. The interpretation of effect sizes—when is an effect small, medium, or large?—has been guided by the recommendations Jacob Cohen gave in his pioneering writings starting in 1962: Either compare an effect with the effects found in past research or use certain conventional benchmarks. The present analysis shows that neither of these recommendations is currently applicable. From past publications without pre-registration, 900 effects were randomly drawn and compared with 93 effects from publications with pre-registration, revealing a large difference: Effects from the former (median r = 0.36) were much larger than effects from the latter (median r = 0.16). That is, certain biases, such as publication bias or questionable research practices, have caused a dramatic inflation in published effects, making it difficult to compare an actual effect with the real population effects (as these are unknown). In addition, there were very large differences in the mean effects between psychological sub-disciplines and between different study designs, making it impossible to apply any global benchmarks. Many more pre-registered studies are needed in the future to derive a reliable picture of real population effects.
机译：效应大小是心理学研究的基础。他们量化研究结果以回答研究问题，并用于计算统计功效。效应大小的解释（是效应是小，中还是大？）由雅各布·科恩（Jacob Cohen）从1962年开始的开创性著作中提出的建议指导：将效应与过去研究中发现的效应进行比较，或者使用某些常规基准。本分析表明，这些建议目前均不适用。从以前没有预注册的出版物中随机抽取900种效果，并将其与有预注册的出版物中的93种效果进行比较，发现差异很大：前者的效果（中位数r = 0.36）比后者的效果大（中位数） r = 0.16）。也就是说，某些偏见，例如出版偏见或可疑的研究实践，已导致已发表的效应急剧膨胀，从而难以将实际效应与实际人口效应进行比较（因为这些未知）。此外，心理学子学科之间以及不同研究设计之间的均值效应之间存在很大差异，因此无法应用任何全球基准。将来需要进行更多的预注册研究，以得出真实的人口效应的可靠图像。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号