A universal measure of the magnitude of effect size is introduced for Euclidean-based regression analyses of experimental designs. The measure is based on the ratio of the sums of Euclidean residuals obtained under the alternative and null hypotheses.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychological Association. (1994) Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. (4th ed.) Washington, DC: Author.
2.
American Psychological Association. (2001) Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. (5th ed.) Washington, DC: Author.
3.
BerryK. J.MielkeP. W.Jr. (1998) Least absolute regression residuals: analyses of block designs. Psychological Reports, 83, 923–929.
4.
BerryK. J.MielkeP. W.Jr. (1999a) Least absolute regression residuals: analyses of randomized designs. Psychological Reports, 84, 947–954.
5.
BerryK. J.MielkeP. W.Jr. (1999b) Least absolute regression residuals: analyses of split-plot designs. Psychological Reports, 85, 445–453.
6.
BerryK. J.MielkeP. W.Jr.IyerH. K. (1998) Factorial designs and dummy coding. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 919–927.
7.
BerryK. J.MielkeP. W.Jr.MielkeH. W. (2002) The Fisher-Pitman Permutation Test: an attractive alternative to the F test. Psychological Reports, 90, 495–502.
8.
CohenJ. (1990) Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304–1312.
9.
CohenJ. (1994) The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997–1003.
10.
DanielW. W. (1977) Statistical significance versus practical significance. Science Education, 61, 423–427.
11.
FleissJ. L. (1969) Estimating the magnitude of experimental effects. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 273–276.
12.
GravetterF. J.WallnauL. B. (2002) Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences. (4th ed.) Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth.
13.
HensonR. K.SmithA. D. (2000) State of the art in statistical significance and effect size reporting: a review of the APA Task Force report and current trends. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33, 285–296.
14.
HowellD. C. (2002) Statistical methods for psychology. (5th ed.) Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.
15.
HubertyC. J. (2002) A history of effect size indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 227–240.
16.
KeppelG. (1982) Design and analysis: a researcher's handbook. (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
17.
KirkR. E. (1996) Practical significance: a concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 746–759.
18.
KirkR. E. (2001) Promoting good statistical practices: some suggestions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 213–218.
19.
MicceriT. (1989) The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 156–166.
20.
MielkeP. W.Jr.BerryK. J. (1997) Permutation covariate analyses of residuals based on Euclidean distance. Psychological Reports, 81, 795–802.
21.
MielkeP. W.Jr.BerryK. J. (2001) Permutation methods: a distance function approach. New York: Springer-Verlag.
22.
MielkeP. W.Jr.BerryK. J. (2002) Multivariate multiple regression analyses: a permutation method for linear models. Psychological Reports, 91, 3–9. Erratum. Psychological Reports, 2002, 91, 2.
23.
RobertsJ. K.HensonR. K. (2002) Correction for bias in estimating effect sizes. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 241–253.
24.
SnyderP.LawsonS. (1993) Evaluating results using corrected and uncorrected size estimates. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 334–349.
25.
StevensJ. P. (1990) Intermediate statistics: a modern approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vacha-HaaseT. (2001) Statistical significance should not be considered one of life's guarantees: effect sizes are needed. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 219–224.
28.
WilkinsonL. & the Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999) Statistical methods in psychology journals: guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594–604.
