2004
DOI: 10.1037/h0088888
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Statistical and Practical Significance in the IJPT: A Research Review from 1993-2003.

Abstract: The reporting and interpretation of effect sizes in addition to statistical significance tests is becoming increasingly recognized as good research practice, as evidenced by the editorial policies of at least 23 journals that now require effect sizes. Statistical significance tests are limited in the information they provide readers about results, and effect sizes can be useful when evaluating result importance. The current article (a) summarizes statistical versus practical significance, (b) briefly discusses… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
(55 reference statements)
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is worth noting, though, that despite a small effect we did survey four professional groups. Thus our results should generalize to a relatively broad population of organizations and employees (Armstrong and Henson, 2004).…”
Section: Implications For Management Of Tasw and Work-life Issuesmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…It is worth noting, though, that despite a small effect we did survey four professional groups. Thus our results should generalize to a relatively broad population of organizations and employees (Armstrong and Henson, 2004).…”
Section: Implications For Management Of Tasw and Work-life Issuesmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Effect sizes were also calculated for each of the mean differences. There is some agreement in the literature as to the value in using effect size in addition to inferential tests, not only because of the threat of a Type II error when participant numbers are small but also because an effect size provides a measure of practical or clinical significance (Armstrong & Henson, 2004;Osborne, 2008;Ruscio, 2008). Effect sizes for setting were calculated for (a) total engagement, (b) active engagement, (c) passive engagement, (d) adult interaction, and (e) peer interaction by dividing mean difference by the pooled standard deviation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Practical significance involves a value judgment made by the consumer of research about the implications of a set of results and the consequences of a particular decision (Vaske, Gliner, & Morgan, 2002). Practical significance means asking the question of whether the results are noteworthy and whether they are big enough to matter (Armstrong & Henson, 2004). In other words, ''data should be described in a way that fits with how practitioners would describe the situation being addressed in the study'' (Baldridge et al, 2004(Baldridge et al, , p. 1073.…”
Section: Solution For Problem #4: Report Practical Significancementioning
confidence: 99%