Beyond small, medium, or large: points of consideration when interpreting effect sizes

Bakker, Arthur; Cai, Jinfa; English, Lyn D.; Kaiser, Gabriele; Mesa, Vilma; Dooren, Wim Van

doi:10.1007/s10649-019-09908-4

Cited by 189 publications

(132 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

125

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Analyzing a rather large sample of 1282 students, significant differences in group comparisons are very likely to occur. P values are hence accompanied by interpreting the corresponding effect sizes (Bakker et al 2019). According to Cohen (1969), we consider effects lower than d = 0.20-and despite being significant-negligible for the purpose of this study.…”

Section: Data and Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of spatial, verbal, numerical, and general reasoning abilities in complex word problem solving for young female and male adults

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analyzed the relative importance of different cognitive abilities for solving complex mathematical word problems (CWPs)-a demanding task of high relevance for diverse fields and contexts. We investigated the effects of spatial, verbal, numerical, and general reasoning abilities as well as gender on CWP performance among N = 1282 firstyear university engineering students. Generalized linear mixed models unveiled significant unique effects of spatial ability, β = 0.284, verbal ability, β = 0.342, numerical ability, β = 0.164, general reasoning, β = 0.248, and an overall gender effect in favor of male students, β = 0.285. Analyses revealed negligible to small gender effects in verbal and general reasoning ability. Despite a gender effect in spatial ability, d = 0.48, and numerical ability, d = 0.30-both in favor of male students-further analyses showed that effects of all measured cognitive abilities on CWP solving were comparable for both women and men. Our results underpin that CWP solving requires a broad facet of cognitive abilities besides mere mathematical competencies. Since gender differences in CWP solving were not fully explained by differences in the four measured cognitive abilities, gender-specific attitudes, beliefs, and emotions could be considered possible affective moderators of CWP performance.

show abstract

Section: Data and Statistical Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of spatial, verbal, numerical, and general reasoning abilities in complex word problem solving for young female and male adults

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Olivier, May, and Bell (2017), relative risks of 1.22, 1.86, and 3.00 represent benchmarks for small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively. We offer these benchmarks as a guide, but caution readers when interpreting relative effect sizes absolutely without context or reference (Bakker et al, 2019). In our study, we view relative risk, in terms of an effect size, as a "measure of clarity" with regard to the meaningfulness of differences between groups (Simpson, 2020, p. 129).…”

Section: The Regression Model Used Is : Logitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Releasing the conceptual spring to construct multiplicative reasoning

Zwanch

Wilkins

2020

Educ Stud Math

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Constructing multiplicative reasoning is critical for students’ learning of mathematics, particularly throughout the middle grades and beyond. Tzur, Xin, Si, Kenney, and Guebert [American Educational Research Association, ERIC No. ED510991, (2010)] conclude that an assimilatory composite unit is a conceptual spring to multiplicative reasoning. This study examines patterns in the percentages of students who construct multiplicative reasoning across the middle grades based on their fluency in operating with composite units. Multinomial logistic regression models indicate that students’ rate of constructing an assimilatory composite unit but not multiplicative reasoning in sixth and seventh grades is significantly greater than that in eighth and ninth grades. Furthermore, the proportion of students who have constructed multiplicative reasoning in sixth and seventh grades is significantly less than the proportion of those who have constructed multiplicative reasoning in eighth and ninth grades. One implication of this is the quantitative verification of Tzur, Xin, Si, Kenney, and Guebert’s (2010) conceptual spring. That is, students who construct assimilatory composite units early in the middle grades are likely to construct multiplicative reasoning; students who do not construct assimilatory composite units early in the middle grades likely do not construct multiplicative reasoning in the middle grades.

show abstract

“…I welcomed this gesture of jointly aiming to push our field forward. The first materialization of our intentions was a joint editorial with several editors of journals in our field (Bakker et al, 2019). Although this editorial's topic, effect sizes, is not one of the major themes in our research domain, we were worried about several trends in interpreting effect sizes, both in research and in educational practice.…”

Section: Years Of Mathematics Education Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%