The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation.
Abstract
The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (American Psychological Association, 2001, American Psychological Association, 2010) calls for the reporting of effect sizes and their confidence intervals. Estimates of effect size are useful for determining the practical or theoretical importance of an effect, the relative contributions of factors, and the power of an analysis. We surveyed articles published in 2009 and 2010 in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, noting the statistical analyses reported and the associated reporting of effect size estimates. Effect sizes were reported for fewer than half of the analyses; no article reported a confidence interval for an effect size. The most often reported analysis was analysis of variance, and almost half of these reports were not accompanied by effect sizes. Partial η2 was the most commonly reported effect size estimate for analysis of variance. For t tests, 2/3 of the articles did not report an associated effect size estimate; Cohen's d was the most often reported. We provide a straightforward guide to understanding, selecting, calculating, and interpreting effect sizes for many types of data and to methods for calculating effect size confidence intervals and power analysis.
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
“A common property of statistics holds that sampling from restricted ranges of the total population usually biases ES downward, due to reduced variability (Bobko, Roth, & Bobko, 2001;Fritz, Morris, & Richler, 2012).”
From Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis (2015) · cites this paper as Fritz, Morris, & Richler, 2012
In the citing paper
“Small-sample studies are generally more prone to bias, and the relatively large confidence intervals presented in these studies suggest high uncertainty around the point estimates [47, 48].”
From Depression, anxiety, PTSD, and OCD after stillbirth: a systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [47]
In the citing paper
“Nevertheless, reporting the effect size and its confidence intervals continues to be uncommon (Frias-Navarro et al., 2012; Fritz et al., 2012; Peng et al., 2013).”
From Misconceptions of the p-value among Chilean and Italian Academic Psychologists (2016) · cites this paper as Fritz et al., 2012
In the citing paper
“There are several websites that offer routines/programs for computing general or specific effect size estimators and their confidence intervals (Fritz et al., 2012; Peng et al., 2013).”
From Misconceptions of the p-value among Chilean and Italian Academic Psychologists (2016) · cites this paper as Fritz et al., 2012
In the citing paper
“This ratio does not reflect the typical demographic profile of the SCI population, where males often comprise 70-80% of individuals affected, which hinders the generalizability of the review findings to this population [43].”
From Mindfulness- and acceptance-based interventions for people with spinal cord injury: a scoping review. (2025) · cites this paper as [43]
Citations
Cites
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1983) · Cited by 79,882
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Lachenbruch, P. A., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290095 · Cited by 37,421
Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences
Guitton, H., & Siegel, S. (1958) · Revue économique · doi:10.2307/3498751 · Cited by 35,279
Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Cohen, P., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2014) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410606266 · Cited by 20,870
Wasserman, S. S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,377
(2007) · Cited by 10,092
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Statistical Methods for Psychology.
Gudgeon, A. C., & Howell, D. C. (1994) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) · doi:10.2307/2348956 · Cited by 8,277
Beaton, A. E., & Keppel, G. (1975) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.2307/1162588 · Cited by 5,857
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gut microbiome modulates response to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in melanoma patients
Gopalakrishnan, V., Spencer, C. N., Nezi, L., Reuben, A., Andrews, M. C., Karpinets, T. V., Prieto, P. A., Vicente, D., Hoffman, K., Wei, S. C., et al. (2018) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aan4236 · Cited by 4,812
The New Statistics: Why and How
Cumming, G. (2014) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797613504966 · Cited by 3,200
“Fritz, Morris, and Richler (2012) discussed a range of ES measures, especially in the context of multiway designs, with an emphasis on practical use and interpretation.”
How Big Is “Big”? Interpreting Effect Sizes in L2 Research
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12079 · Cited by 1,960
Bayesian estimation supersedes the t-test
Kruschke, J. K. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0029146 · Cited by 1,530
Using the Student's t-test with extremely small sample sizes
de Winter, J. C. F. (2013) · University of Massachusetts Amherst · doi:10.7275/e4r6-dj05 · Cited by 992
Metadata
- Authors
- Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J.
- Affiliations
- Lancaster University (GB)
- ORCID
- Richler, Jennifer J.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 141
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 2-18
- ISSN
- 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-2222
- OpenAlex
- W2148540129
- Cited by
- 5,199
- References
- 52
- Citations by year
- 2026: 484 · 2025: 626 · 2024: 516 · 2023: 502 · 2022: 581 · 2021: 607 · 2020: 491 · 2019: 339 · 2018: 293 · 2017: 239 · 2016: 198 · 2015: 138 · 2014: 86 · 2013: 67 · 2012: 21
- FWCI
- 61.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2011-10-24)
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Keywords
- effect size, effect size reporting, confidence intervals, power analysis, partial eta squared, Cohen's d, analysis of variance, t-test, statistical reporting
- MeSH terms
- Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Research Design, Statistics as Topic, Sample Size
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
