Effect sizes are powerful tools for evaluating the practical importance of study findings that should be considered in the context of study characteristics such as participants, dependent variables, and comparison condition. In this article, we discuss how group–difference effect sizes are used to gauge the practical importance of group experimental studies. We first define different types of group–difference effect sizes and discuss how they can provide valuable information for research consumers. Second, we present guidelines for interpreting group–difference effect sizes. Third, we discuss important contextual variables that should be taken into account when interpreting group–difference effect sizes reported in the literature. Last, we provide two examples of how group–difference effect sizes have been used in the learning disabilities research base.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035006033
BulgrenJ. A., MarquisJ. G., DeshlerD. D., LenzB. K., & SchumakerJ. B. (2013). The use and effectiveness of a question exploration routine in secondary–level English language arts classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12018
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
CookB. G., & CookL. (2016). Research designs and special education research: Different designs address different questions. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31, 190–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12110
7.
CookB. G., BuysseV., KlingnerJ. K., LandrumT. J., McWilliamR. A., TankersleyM., et al. (2015). CEC's standards for classifying the evidence base of practices in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193251455727
8.
GerstenR., FuchsL. S., ComptonD., CoyneM., GreenwoodC., & InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi–experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100202
9.
HattieJ. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta–analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
10.
LakensD. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t–tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863
11.
LipseyM. W., PuzioK., YunC., HebertM. A., Steinka–FryK., ColeM. W., et al. (2012). Translating the statistical representation of the effects of education interventions into more readily interpretable forms. Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20133000/pdf/20133000.pdf
12.
LittleM. E., RawlinsonD. A., SimmonsD. C., KimM., KwokO. M., Hagan–BurkeS., et al. (2012). A comparison of responsive interventions on kindergarteners’ early reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00366.x
13.
MathewsH. M., HirschS. E., & TherrienW. J. (2017). Becoming critical consumers of research: Understanding replication. Intervention in School and Clinic. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451217736863
14.
RosenthalJ. A. (1996). Qualitative descriptors of strength of association and effect size. Journal of Social Service Research, 21(4), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v21n04_02
15.
TherrienW. J., ZamanM., & BandaD. R. (2011). How can meta–analyses guide practice? A review of the learning disability research base. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 206–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510361266
VaughnS., & WanzekJ. (2014). Intensive interventions in reading for students with reading disabilities: Meaningful impacts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12031
Wilkinson & Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychological journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594–604. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.8.594
