Interpreting Effect Sizes of Education Interventions
Open accessAbstract
Researchers commonly interpret effect sizes by applying benchmarks proposed by Jacob Cohen over a half century ago. However, effects that are small by Cohen’s standards are large relative to the impacts of most field-based interventions. These benchmarks also fail to consider important differences in study features, program costs, and scalability. In this article, I present five broad guidelines for interpreting effect sizes that are applicable across the social sciences. I then propose a more structured schema with new empirical benchmarks for interpreting a specific class of studies: causal research on education interventions with standardized achievement outcomes. Together, these tools provide a practical approach for incorporating study features, costs, and scalability into the process of interpreting the policy importance of effect sizes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Under Kraft's (2019) benchmark, the impact of PS-I interventions evaluated in this meta-analysis can be considered rather large relative to I-PS counterparts.
“In that light, the impact of PS-I interventions evaluated via our meta-analysis can be considered rather large, relative to I-PS counterparts.”
From When Problem Solving Followed by Instruction Works: Evidence for Productive Failure (2021) · cites this paper as Kraft (2019)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
When Problem Solving Followed by Instruction Works: Evidence for Productive Failure
Sinha, T., & Kapur, M. (2021) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543211019105 · Cited by 212 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kraft, M.
- Affiliations
- Brown University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kraft, Matthew
- ORCID
- Kraft, Matthew
- Venue
- Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University
- Publisher
- Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University
- Published
- 2019
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 241-253
- ISSN
- 0013-189X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2968077443
- Cited by
- 1,286
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 238 · 2025: 226 · 2024: 199 · 2023: 266 · 2022: 165 · 2021: 123 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 11 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 92.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Educational Researcher (publishedVersion)
- Brown Digital Repository
- EdWorkingPapers.com
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Keywords
- effect size interpretation, educational intervention, program costs, scalability, causal research
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