The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Alternative to Cohen's Standardized Mean Difference Effect Size: A Robust Parameter and Confidence Interval in the Two Independent Groups Case.
Abstract
The authors argue that a robust version of Cohen's effect size constructed by replacing population means with 20% trimmed means and the population standard deviation with the square root of a 20% Winsorized variance is a better measure of population separation than is Cohen's effect size. The authors investigated coverage probability for confidence intervals for the new effect size measure. The confidence intervals were constructed by using the noncentral t distribution and the percentile bootstrap. Over the range of distributions and effect sizes investigated in the study, coverage probability was better for the percentile bootstrap confidence interval.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Huber, P. J. (1981) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471725250 · Cited by 7,066
Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations.
Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.8.594 · Cited by 2,791
The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: A review.
Cohen, J. (1962) · The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0045186 · Cited by 1,824
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 by
Ellis, P. D. (2010) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511761676 · Cited by 2,461
Modern robust statistical methods: An easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research.
Erceg-Hurn, D. M., & Mirosevich, V. M. (2008) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.63.7.591 · Cited by 959
A probability-based measure of effect size: Robustness to base rates and other factors.
Ruscio, J. (2008) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.13.1.19 · Cited by 398
A novel measure of effect size for mediation analysis
Lachowicz, M. J., Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2018) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/met0000165 · Cited by 271
Metacognition of agency is reduced in high hypnotic suggestibility
Terhune, D. B., & Hedman, L. R. A. (2017) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.026 · Cited by 50
The Impact of APA and AERA Guidelines on effect size reporting
Peng, C.-Y. J., Chen, L.-T., Chiang, H.-M., & Chiang, Y.-C. (2013) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-013-9218-2 · Cited by 46
Metadata
- Authors
- Algina, J., Keselman, H. J., & Penfield, R. D.
- Venue
- Psychological Methods
- Published
- 2005-09
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 317-328
- ISSN
- 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1463
- OpenAlex
- W1980718559
- Cited by
- 290
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 7.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
