The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Distribution Theory for Glass's Estimator of Effect Size and Related Estimators
Abstract
Glass's estimator of effect size, the sample mean difference divided by the sample standard deviation, is studied in the context of an explicit statistical model. The exact distribution of Glass's estimator is obtained and the estimator is shown to have a small sample bias. The minimum variance unbiased estimator is obtained and shown to have uniformly smaller variance than Glass's (biased) estimator. Measurement error is shown to attenuate estimates of effect size and a correction is given. The effects of measurement invalidity are discussed. Expressions for weights that yield the most precise weighted estimate of effect size are also derived.
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
“Raw effect sizes were corrected for bias (i.e., the upward-bias of effect sizes among small samples; Hedges, 1981); however, most correction factors were close to 1.0 given the large sample sizes.”
From Gender Differences in Depression in Representative National Samples: Meta-Analyses of Diagnoses and Symptoms (2017) · cites this paper as Hedges, 1981
In the citing paper
“we applied a correction to bias-correct estimates (resulting in what is often referred to as Hedge ' s g ).”
From The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies (2020) · cites this paper as Hedges 1981
In the citing paper
“As standardized mean difference ( d ) is known to have a slight positive bias (Hedges 1981), we applied a correction to bias-correct estimates (resulting in what is often referred to as Hedge ' s g ).”
From The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies (2020) · cites this paper as Hedges 1981
In the citing paper
“To correct for possible bias caused by small samples, Cohen's d was then used to calculate Hedges' g (Hedges 1981).”
From The gamification of learning: a meta-analysis (2020) · cites this paper as Hedges 1981
In the citing paper
“Effect sizes were computed as Hedges’ g standardised mean differences (SMDs) to correct for small-sample bias and improve comparability across tasks88.”
From Meta-analysis of computerised working memory training: behavioural gains, training parameters, transfer mechanisms, and neural correlates (2026) · cites this paper as [88]
In the citing paper
“Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine appear ineffective. 13 , 14”
From Non-pharmacological interventions for agitation in dementia: systematic review of randomised controlled trials (2014) · cites this paper as [13]
In the citing paper
“Unlike Cohen's d, Hedge's G a helps to control for common overestimations of effect sizes in samples below 20 (Hedges 1981).”
In the citing paper
“Preliminary searching indicates that most samples are over 100 and none are under 50, so the small‐sample correction (to use Hedges' g) is not likely to be needed (Hedges, 1981).”
From PROTOCOL: Single-track year-round education for improving academic achievement in us k-12 schools: results of a meta-analysis (2018) · cites this paper as Hedges, 1981
In the citing paper
“We chose Hedges’ g as our measure of effect size because it is unitless, so it allows us to compare human–AI performance across different metrics, and it corrects for upward bias in the raw standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d)61.”
From When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [61]
In the citing paper
“Risk of bias of the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias 120 , which were independently conducted by a minimum of two researchers (KJM, PA, and/or DH).”
In the citing paper
“Next, an estimation for Hedges' g (Hedges, 1981) was applied as a conservative measure to correct for sample size.”
In the citing paper
“Since differences in sample sizes between studies might introduce bias into the calculated effect sizes, Hedges's g was used to adjust the effect sizes to correct for small sample size biases (Hedges, 1981).”
From RETRACTED ARTICLE: The effect of ChatGPT on students’ learning performance, learning perception, and higher-order thinking: insights from a meta-analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Hedges, 1981
Citations
Cites
Rozeboom, W. W., Lord, F. M., Novick, M. R., & Birnbaum, A. (1969) · American Educational Research Journal · doi:10.2307/1162101 · Cited by 8,012
Journal of The American Statistical Association
Fienberg, S. E. (2004) · Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences · doi:10.1002/0471667196.ess1317 · Cited by 6,289
Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research
GLASS, G. V. (1976) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x005010003 · Cited by 4,890
Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies.
Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. (1977) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.32.9.752 · Cited by 2,154
Meta-Analysis of Research on Class Size and Achievement
Glass, G., & Smith, M. (1979) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/01623737001001002 · Cited by 599
APPLICATIONS OF THE NON-CENTRAL t-DISTRIBUTION
Johnson, N. L., & Welch, B. L. (1940) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/31.3-4.362 · Cited by 261
Meta-analysis of research on the relationship of class-size and achievement
Glass, G. V., & Smith, M. L. (1981) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 193
The Distribution of Linear Combinations of t -Variables
Walker, G. A., & Saw, J. G. (1978) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1978.10480117 · Cited by 36
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 9 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2010) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.12 · Cited by 6,793
Self-citationThe Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553
Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis.
Stajković, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240 · Cited by 4,130
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249 · Cited by 3,732
An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers.
Ferguson, C. J. (2009) · Professional Psychology: Research and Practice · doi:10.1037/a0015808 · Cited by 3,467
Metadata
- Authors
- Hedges, L. V.
- Affiliations
- University of Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hedges, Larry V.
- ORCID
- Hedges, Larry V.
- Venue
- Journal of Educational Statistics
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1981
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 107
- ISSN
- 0362-9791 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2059527510
- Cited by
- 5,695
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 623 · 2025: 486 · 2024: 543 · 2023: 414 · 2022: 463 · 2021: 405 · 2020: 359 · 2019: 306 · 2018: 264 · 2017: 222 · 2016: 198 · 2015: 175 · 2014: 169 · 2013: 132 · 2012: 118
- FWCI
- 61.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Educational Statistics (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Spencer Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- effect size, exact distribution, small sample bias, minimum variance unbiased estimator, measurement error, measurement error correction
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