Cited by 1,008Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and BibliometricsPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

When small effects are impressive

Prentice, Deborah A., Miller, Dale T.·1992·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

Effect size is becoming an increasingly popular measure of the importance of an effect, both in individual studies and in meta-analyses. However, a large effect size is not the only way to demonstrate that an effect is important. This article describes 2 alternative methodological strategies, in which importance is a function of how minimal a manipulation of the independent variable or how difficult-to-influence a dependent variable will still produce an effect. These methodologies demonstrate the importance of an independent variable or psychological process, even though they often yield effects that are small in statistical terms

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.160

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
1992-07
Volume
112
Issue
1
Pages
160-164
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2011756420
Cited by
1,008
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 56 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 49
FWCI
12.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
effect size, meta-analysis, cognitive processes

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