The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC Area, Cohen's d, and r.
Abstract
In order to facilitate comparisons across follow-up studies that have used different measures of effect size, we provide a table of effect size equivalencies for the three most common measures: ROC area (AUC), Cohen's d, and r. We outline why AUC is the preferred measure of predictive or diagnostic accuracy in forensic psychology or psychiatry, and we urge researchers and practitioners to use numbers rather than verbal labels to characterize effect sizes.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The magnitude of the effects of these risk domains ranged from small (i.e., r= 0.099 for “low IQ/learning difficulties”) to large (i.e., r= 0.553 for “having a negative school attitude”) based on the criteria of Rice and Harris (2005) for interpreting effect sizes.”
From Risk Factors for School Absenteeism and Dropout: A Meta-Analytic Review (2019) · cites this paper as Rice and Harris (2005)
In the citing paper
“The AUC of 0.62 is also a moderate effect size [14], but is less than that for deadly violence (but this difference was not statistically significant).”
From The Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment and Honour-Based Violence (DASH) Risk Assessment Instrument in Predicting Deadly or Persistent Domestic Abuse (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“The AUC of 0.67 for deadly violence is regarded as a “moderate” effect size [14].”
From The Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment and Honour-Based Violence (DASH) Risk Assessment Instrument in Predicting Deadly or Persistent Domestic Abuse (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
In the citing paper
“AUC values of 0.56, 0.64, and 0.71 indicate small, medium, and large effects (Rice & Harris, 2005).”
From Strategies for monitoring mentoring relationship quality to predict early program dropout (2022) · cites this paper as Rice & Harris, 2005
Citations
Cites
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients.
Hemphill, J. F. (2003) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.58.1.78 · Cited by 1,237
A common language effect size statistic
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.2.361 · Cited by 934 · cited 1×
“AUC also has a plain language interpretation because it is conceptually and mathematically similar to the common language effect size or CL ( McGraw & Wong, 1992; see also Delaney & Vargha, 2002).”
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Berlin, F. S., Galbreath, N. W., Geary, B., & McGlone, G. (2003). The use of actuarials at civil commitment hearings to predict the likelihood of future sexual violence. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15, 377–382. · DOI
- Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 155–159. · DOI · Paper page
- Delaney, H. D., & Vargha, A. (2002). Comparing several robust tests of stochastic equality with ordinally scaled variables and small to moderate sized samples. Psychological Methods, 7, 485–503. · DOI
- Harris, G. T., & Rice, M. E. (2003). Actuarial assessment of risk among sex offenders. In R. A. Prentky, E. S. Janus, & M. C. Seto (Eds.), Understanding and managing sexually coercive behavior, Vol. 989 (pp. 198–210). New York: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. · DOI
- Mossman, D. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 783–792. · DOI
- Pearson, E. S., & Hartley, H. O. (Eds.). (1954). Biometrika tables for statisticians, Vol. 1 (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T. (1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 737–748. · DOI
- Rosenthal, R. (1990). How are we doing in soft psychology? American Psychologist, 45, 775–777. · DOI
- Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 166–169. · DOI
- Swets, J. A. (1986). Indices of discrimination or diagnostic accuracy: Their ROCs and implied models. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 100–117. · DOI
- Swets, J. A., Dawes, R. M., & Monahan, J. (2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 1, 1–26. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Inkster, B., Sarda, S., & Subramanian, V. (2018) · doi:10.2196/preprints.12106 · Cited by 1,063
“The CL gives the probability that a user picked at random from the high users group will have a higher average improvement than a user picked at random from the low users group [38,39].”
BackgroundHanson, R., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2009) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/a0014421 · Cited by 1,034
“Although the effect sizes for most of the measures were moderate to large by conventional standards (Cohen, 1988; Rice & Harris, 2005), there are no direct procedures for translating the observed effect sizes into statements concerning the normative value or utility of specific measures (e.g., is a…”
BackgroundMann, R. E., Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2010) · Sexual Abuse · doi:10.1177/1079063210366039 · Cited by 1,044
“Both d and AUC are based on similar statistical models (Swets, 1986), and the transformations between these metrics are well documented: for example, d of 0.20 = AUC of 0.556, d of 0.50 = AUC of 0.639, d of 0.80 = AUC of 0.714; Rice & Harris, 2005).”
BackgroundInfluentialViolent offenders: Appraising and managing risk (2nd ed.).
Quinsey, V. L., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Cormier, C. A. (2006) · American Psychological Association eBooks · doi:10.1037/11367-000 · Cited by 680
Self-citationThe efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools.
Yang, M., Wong, S. C. P., & Coid, J. (2010) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0020473 · Cited by 525
“For eight studies that reported only the AUC values, a direct conversion of the AUC value to the d value was carried out on the basis of the table of M. E. Rice and Harris (2005).”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Rice, M. E., & Harris, G. T.
- Affiliations
- Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (CA)
- Venue
- Law and Human Behavior
- Published
- 2005-10
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 615-620
- ISSN
- 0147-7307 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-661X
- OpenAlex
- W2060774914
- Cited by
- 1,608
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 60 · 2025: 84 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 121 · 2022: 151 · 2021: 150 · 2020: 174 · 2019: 137 · 2018: 112 · 2017: 80 · 2016: 88 · 2015: 65 · 2014: 64 · 2013: 58 · 2012: 51
- FWCI
- 11.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Law and Human Behavior (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- effect size, Cohen's d, diagnostic accuracy, prediction accuracy, forensic psychology, follow-up study
- MeSH terms
- Forecasting, Humans, ROC Curve, Risk Assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
