Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 938

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Qualitative Descriptors of Strength of Association and Effect Size

Rosenthal, James A.·1996·Journal of Social Service Research
DOI 10.1300/j079v21n04_02
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Cohen's (1988) work in power analysis connects values of r and d(difference in means in standard deviation units) with the qualitative descriptors small, medium, and large. This paper discusses the pros and cons of using qualitative (nonmathematical) descriptors of strength of association and effect size in data interpretation. It proposes an extension of Cohen's classification scheme through the addition of a “very large” descriptive category. The paper presents advantages of the odds ratio for the analysis of categorical data, argues for increased use of the odds ratio, and develops qualitative descriptors of effect size for the odds ratio: about 1.5 to 1 = small effect (or weak association), about 2.5 to 1 = medium (or moderate), about 4 to 1 = large (or strong), about 10 to 1 = very large (or very strong). When percentages are between about 15 and 85, qualitative descriptors of effect size can be utilized for the difference in percentages: about 7 percentage points = small, about 18 points = medium, about 30 points = large, about 45 points = very large. Where treated as flexible guidelines rather than rigid rules and where sensitive to context and substantive area, qualitative description facilitates data interpretation and communication, particularly for the non-statistical audience: beginning students, administrators, practitioners.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1300/j079v21n04_02

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Aldrich J. H., 1986, Linear probability, logit, andprobit models
  2. Blalock H. M., 1979, Social statistics,
  3. Bloom M, 1994, Evaluating practice: Guidelines forthe accountable professional,
  4. Craft J., 1990, Statistics and data analysis for social workers
  5. Cohen J., 1988, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
  6. Cohen J., 1983, Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis forthe behavioral sciences,
  7. Cooper H., 1994, Handbook ofreseatvh synthesis
  8. Fleiss J. L., 1994, Handbook of research synthesis
  9. Glass G. V., 1981, Meta-analysis in social research
  10. Hedges L. V., 1985, Statistical methods for meta-analysis
  11. 10.1177/0959354391013007 · DOI
  12. Herrnstein R. J., 1994, The bell curve: Intelligence and classstructure in American Life
  13. Knoke D., 1980, Log-linear models, 10.4135/9781412984843 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1016/0145-2134(88)90034-8 · DOI
  15. 10.1086/603782 · doi:10.1086/603782
  16. Rosenthal J. A., 1991, Social WorkResearch ?, 27, 16
  17. Rosenthal R., 1994, Handbook of research synthesis
  18. 10.1037/0022-0663.74.2.166 · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.74.2.166 · Paper page
  19. Royse D., 1995, Research methods in social work,
  20. Rubin A., 1993, Research methods for social work,
  21. Rubin A., 1983, Social Work Research & Abstracts, 21, 34, 10.1093/swra/21.1.34 · doi:10.1093/swra/21.1.34
  22. 1993, SPSS for Windows base system user's guide release 6.0

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Rosenthal, J. A.
Venue
Journal of Social Service Research
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1996-10-11
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
37-59
ISSN
  • 0148-8376 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-7314
DOI
10.1300/j079v21n04_02
OpenAlex
W2050256879
Cited by
938
References
0
FWCI
2.41
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.