The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Confidence Intervals for Standardized Effect Sizes: Theory, Application, and Implementation
Open accessAbstract
The behavioral, educational, and social sciences are undergoing a paradigmatic shift in methodology, from disciplines that focus on the dichotomous outcome of null hypothesis significance tests to disciplines that report and interpret effect sizes and their corresponding confidence intervals. Due to the arbitrariness of many measurement instruments used in the behavioral, educational, and social sciences, some of the most widely reported effect sizes are standardized. Although forming confidence intervals for standardized effect sizes can be very beneficial, such confidence interval procedures are generally difficult to implement because they depend on noncentral t, F, and x2 distributions. At present, no main-stream statistical package provides exact confidence intervals for standardized effects without the use of specialized programming scripts. Methods for the Behavioral, Educational, and Social Sciences (MBESS) is an R package that has routines for calculating confidence intervals for noncentral t, F, and x2 distributions, which are then used in the calculation of exact confidence intervals for standardized effect sizes by using the confidence interval transformation and inversion principles. The present article discusses the way in which confidence intervals are formed for standardized effect sizes and illustrates how such confidence intervals can be easily formed using MBESS in R.
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
Cohen, J. (1994) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.49.12.997 · Cited by 4,003
Outline of a Theory of Statistical Estimation Based on the Classical Theory of Probability
Neyman, J. (1937) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.1937.0005 · Cited by 1,087
Cited by
Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0022658 · Cited by 3,060
Self-citationLakens, D. (2022) · Collabra Psychology · doi:10.1525/collabra.33267 · Cited by 1,962
The fallacy of placing confidence in confidence intervals
Morey, R. D., Hoekstra, R., Rouder, J. N., Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2016) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0947-8 · Cited by 577
A primer on investigating the after effects of acute bouts of physical activity on cognition
Pontifex, M. B., McGowan, A. L., Chandler, M. C., Gwizdala, K. L., Parks, A. C., Fenn, K., & Kamijo, K. (2019) · Psychology of Sport and Exercise · doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.08.015 · Cited by 339
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
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kelley, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Statistical Software
- Publisher
- Foundation for Open Access Statistic
- Published
- 2007
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 8
- ISSN
- 1548-7660 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1933140117
- Cited by
- 236
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 4.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Confidence Intervals for Standardized Effect Sizes: Theory, Application, and Implementation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.18637/jss.v020.i08
- The paper
- Kelley, K. (2007). Confidence Intervals for Standardized Effect Sizes: Theory, Application, and Implementation. Journal of Statistical Software. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v020.i08
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.