The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The essential guide to effect sizes: statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results
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
Cited by
Effect size guidelines for individual differences researchers
Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2016) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069 · Cited by 2,860
Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en psicología
Ato, M., López-García, J. J., & Benavente, A. (2013) · Anales de Psicología · doi:10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511 · Cited by 2,254
Local Standards for Sample Size at CHI
Caine, K. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858498 · Cited by 657
The empirical status of acceptance and commitment therapy: A review of meta-analyses
Gloster, A. T., Walder, N., Levin, M. E., Twohig, M. P., & Karekla, M. (2020) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.09.009 · Cited by 622
Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2019) · Aggression and Violent Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.001 · Cited by 518
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 2011-06-01
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 48-5742-48-5742
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W4242145216
- Cited by
- 626
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The essential guide to effect sizes: statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.48-5742
- The paper
- The essential guide to effect sizes: statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. (2011). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.48-5742
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.
