Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

A close consideration of effect sizes reviewed by Jussim (2012)

  • David Trafimow (a1) and Yogesh J. Raut (a1)

Abstract

This commentary on Jussim (2012) makes two points: (1) Effect sizes often reflect artifacts of experimental design rather than real-world relevance, and (2) any argument dependent on effect sizes must correct for attenuation due to instrument reliabilities. A formula for making this correction is presented, and its ramifications on the debate over accuracy in person perception are discussed.

Copyright

References

Hide All
Allen, M. J. & Yen, W. M. (1979) Introduction to measurement theory. Brooks/Cole.
Gulliksen, H. (1987) Theory of mental tests. Erlbaum.
Hsu, L. M. (2004) Biases of success rate differences shown in binomial effect size displays. Psychological Methods 9(2):183–97. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.2.183
Jussim, L. (2012) Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. Oxford University Press.
Lord, F. M. & Novick, M. R. (1968) Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley.
Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R. L. (1991) Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. McGraw-Hill.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

A close consideration of effect sizes reviewed by Jussim (2012)

  • David Trafimow (a1) and Yogesh J. Raut (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.