A correction on the Bradley and Brand method of estimating effect sizes from published literature

Abstract

Kühberger, Scherndl, and Fritz commented on an attempt by Bradley and Brand to adjust sets of exaggerated effect sizes reported in literatures associated with underpowered Null Hypothesis Statistical Tests (NHST). Their comment highlighted two important issues: (a) the senior author, Bradley, made an error in presenting the correction formula, and (b) there is an inherent incompatibility between inferential statistics and accurate measurement. The proper formula is presented here with evidence that the formula is relatively accurate in appropriately estimating effect sizes that have been exaggerated through NHST. The term relatively accurate is used since power cannot be 100%, and thus any attempt to estimate a true effect size will be out by some relationship between the alpha level, power, and of course statistical variability of the estimates.

Keywords

effect sizes eta power publication bias

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bradley

M. T.

Brand

(2013). Sweeping recommendations regarding effect size and sample size can miss important nuances: A comment on “A comprehensive review of reporting practices in psychological journals.” Theory & Psychology, 23, 797–800. doi: 10.1177/0959354313491854

Bradley

M. T.

Stoica

(2004). Diagnosing estimate distortion due to significance testing in literature on the detection of deception. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98(3), 827–839. doi: 10.2466/Pms.98.3.827–839

Kühberger

Scherndl

Fritz

(2013). On the correlation between effect size and sample size: A reply. Theory & Psychology, 23, 801–804. doi: 10.1177/0959354313500863