Previous research has recommended several measures of effect size for studies with repeated measurements in both treatment and control groups. Three alternate effect size estimates were compared in terms of bias, precision, and robustness to heterogeneity of variance. The results favored an effect size based on the mean pre-post change in the treatment group minus the mean pre-post change in the control group, divided by the pooled pretest standard deviation.
Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Edens, P.S., & Bell, S.T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 234-245.
2.
Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Stanush, P.L., & McNelly, T.L. (1998). Factors that influence skill decay and retention: A quantitative review and analysis. Human Performance, 11, 57-101.
3.
Arvey, R.D., & Cole, D.A. (1989). Evaluating change due to training. In I. L. Goldstein (Ed.), Training and development in organizations (pp. 89-117). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Becker, B.J. (1988). Synthesizing standardized mean-change measures . British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology , 41, 257-278.
5.
Blicksenderfer, E., Cannon-Bowers, J.A., & Salas, E. (1997, April). Training teams to self-correct: An empirical investigation. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO.
6.
Bryk, A.S., & Raudenbush, S.W. (1988). Heterogeneity of variance in experimental studies: A challenge to conventional interpretations. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 396-404.
7.
Callahan, J.S., Kiker, D.S., & Cross, T. (2003). Does method matter? A meta-analysis of the effects of training method on older learner training performance. Journal of Management, 29, 663-680.
8.
Carlson, K.D., & Schmidt, F.L. (1999). Impact of experimental design on effect size: Findings from the research literature on training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 851-862.
9.
Collins, D.B., & Holton, E.F. (2004). The effectiveness of managerial leadership development programs: A meta-analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 217-248.
10.
Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
11.
Cortina, J.M., & Nouri, H. (2000). Effect size for ANOVA designs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Driskell, J.E., Willis, R.P., & Copper, C., (1992). Effect of overlearning on retention. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 615-622.
13.
Dunlap, W.P., Cortina, J.M., Vaslow, J.B., & Burke, M.J. (1996). Meta-analysis of experiments with matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods, 1, 170-177.
14.
Eden, D., Geller, D., Gewirtz, A., Gordon-Terner, R., Inbar, I., Liberman, M., et al. (2000). Implanting pygmalion leadership style through workshop training: Seven field experiments. Leadership Quarterly , 11, 171-210.
15.
Goldstein, I.L., & Ford, J.K. (2002). Training in organizations (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth .
16.
Guzzo, R.A., Jette, R.D., & Katzell, R.A. (1985). The effects of psychologically based interventions programs on worker productivity: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 38, 275-291.
17.
Hedges, L.V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics , 6, 107-128.
18.
Hedges, L.V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
19.
Hunter, J.E., & Schmidt, F.L. (2004). Method of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
International Mathematical and Statistical Library. (1984). User's manual: IMSL Library, problem-solving software system for mathematical and statistical FORTRAN programming (Vol. 3, 9.2 ed.). Houston, TX: Author.
21.
Ivancevich, J.M., & Smith, S.V. (1981). Goal setting interview skills training: Simulated and on the job analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 697-705.
22.
Johnson, N.L., & Kotz, S. (1970). Continuous univariate distributions. New York: John Wiley.
23.
Katz, S.I., & Schwebel, A.I. (1976). The transfer of laboratory training. Small Group Behavior, 7, 271-285.
24.
Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. New York: John Wiley.
25.
Kluger, A.N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin , 119, 254-284.
26.
Maris, E. (1998). Covariance adjustment versus gain scores—Revisited . Psychological Methods, 3, 309-327.
27.
McGehee, W., & Gardner, L.E. (1955). Supervisory training and attitude change. Personnel Psychology, 8, 449-460.
28.
McNatt, D.B. (2000). Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management: A meta-analysis of the result. Journal of Applied Psychology , 85, 314-322.
29.
Miraglia, J.F. (1963). An experiential study of the effects of communication training upon perceived job performance of nursing supervisors in two urban hospitals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University , West Lafayette, Indiana.
30.
Morris, M.A., & Robie, C. (2001). A meta-analysis of the effects of cross-cultural training on expatriate performance and adjustment. International Journal of Training & Development, 5, 112-125.
31.
Morris, S.B. (2000). Distribution of the standardized mean change effect size for meta-analysis on repeated measures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 53, 17-29.
32.
Morris, S.B., & DeShon, R.P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7, 105-125.
33.
Morrow, C.C., Jarrett, M.Q., & Rupinski, M.T. (1997). An investigation of the effect and economic utility of corporate-wide training. Personnel Psychology, 50, 91-119.
34.
Neuman, G.A., Edwards, J.E., & Raju, N.S. (1989). Organizational development interventions: A meta-analysis of their effects on satisfaction and other attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 42, 461-489.
35.
Niemiec, R.P., Sikorski, M.F., Clark, G., & Walberg, H.J. (1992). Effects of management education: A quantitative synthesis. Evaluation & Program Planning, 15, 297-302.
36.
Olejnik, S., & Algina, J. (2000). Measures of effect size for comparative studies: Applications, Interpretations, and limitations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 241-286.
37.
Quinones, M.A., & Tonidandel, S. (2003). Conducting training evaluation . In J. E. Edwards, J. C. Scott, & N. S. Raju (Eds.), The human resources program-evaluation handbook (pp. 225-243). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
38.
Roberts, D.R., & Robertson, P.J. (1992). Positive-findings bias, and measuring methodological rigor, in evaluations of organization development . Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 918-925.
39.
Robson, L.S., Shannon, H.S., Goldenhar, L.M., & Hale, A.R. (2001). Guide to evaluating the effectiveness of strategies for preventing work injuries (DHHS NIOSH 2001-119). Washington, DC: Department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
40.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 231-244). New York: Russell Sage.
41.
Scott, G., Leritz, L.E., & Mumford, M.D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361-388.
42.
Smither, J.W., London, M., & Reilly, R.R. (2005). Does performance improve following multisource feedback? A theoretical model, meta-analysis and review of empirical findings . Personnel Psychology, 58, 33-66.
43.
Taylor, M.J., & White, K.R. (1992). An evaluation of alternative methods for computing standardized mean difference effect size. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 63-72.
44.
Taylor, P.J., Russ-Eft, D.F., & Chan, D.W.L. (2005). A meta-analytic review of behavior modeling training . Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 692-709.
45.
Woehr, D.J., & Huffcutt, A.I. (1994). Rater training for performance appraisal: A quantitative review. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 67, 189-205.
