Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense

Abstract

Effect sizes are underappreciated and often misinterpreted—the most common mistakes being to describe them in ways that are uninformative (e.g., using arbitrary standards) or misleading (e.g., squaring effect-size rs). We propose that effect sizes can be usefully evaluated by comparing them with well-understood benchmarks or by considering them in terms of concrete consequences. In that light, we conclude that when reliably estimated (a critical consideration), an effect-size r of .05 indicates an effect that is very small for the explanation of single events but potentially consequential in the not-very-long run, an effect-size r of .10 indicates an effect that is still small at the level of single events but potentially more ultimately consequential, an effect-size r of .20 indicates a medium effect that is of some explanatory and practical use even in the short run and therefore even more important, and an effect-size r of .30 indicates a large effect that is potentially powerful in both the short and the long run. A very large effect size ( r = .40 or greater) in the context of psychological research is likely to be a gross overestimate that will rarely be found in a large sample or in a replication. Our goal is to help advance the treatment of effect sizes so that rather than being numbers that are ignored, reported without interpretation, or interpreted superficially or incorrectly, they become aspects of research reports that can better inform the application and theoretical development of psychological research.

Cite this

David C. Funder, Daniel J. Ozer (2019). Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202

@article{c2019evaluating,
  title  = {Evaluating Effect Size in Psychological Research: Sense and Nonsense},
  author = {Funder, David C. and Ozer, Daniel J.},
  year   = {2019},
  journal = {Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science},
  doi    = {10.1177/2515245919847202}
}

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3,289 citations exist upstream.

References

Cited by