Reporting the size of effects in research studies to facilitate assessment of practical or clinical significance
Abstract
"Statistically significant" results may lack practical or clinical significance, and the description of results in reports of research studies is frequently incomplete or misleading in presentation of data necessary to assess such significance (effect sizes). Various common presentations are discussed, and one method of presentation of results is proposed that not only encompasses all the others, but enhances the scope of useful information conveyed in a research report. The results of the Infant Health and Development Program (IHDP) are used to illustrate the method.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
The 12-hour differences correspond to dimensionless effect sizes of approximately 0.3 to 0.5 and represent at least suggestive evidence of clinically significant remaining treatment benefit from SLI381 for ADHD as long as 12 hours after administration.
“As these differences calculate to dimensionless effect sizes of between approximately 0.3 and 0.5, we would argue that they represent at least suggestive evidence of “clinically significant” (Kraemer, 1992) remaining treatment benefit from this extended-release preparation for ADHD as long as 12 hours after administration.”
From Analog Classroom Assessment of a Once-Daily Mixed Amphetamine Formulation, SLI381 (ADDERALL XR), in Children With ADHD (2003) · cites this paper as Kraemer, 1992
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 12 · Cited by 63
- Authors
- Kraemer, H. C.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kraemer, Helena Chmura
- Venue
- Psychoneuroendocrinology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1992-11
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 527-536
- ISSN
- 0306-4530 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2079804628
- Cited by
- 63
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 0.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychoneuroendocrinology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (5p50mh030854-18)
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH-30854)
- 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 reporting, practical significance, clinical significance, statistical significance, Infant Health and Development Program
- MeSH terms
- Child Behavior, Child, Preschool, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Infant, Premature, Diseases, Personality Assessment, Psychometrics, Stanford-Binet Test, Effect Modifier, Epidemiologic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
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
