Skip to main content
×
Home

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

  • David Trafimow (a1) and Yogesh J. Raut (a1)
Abstract
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.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • ISSN: 0140-525X
  • EISSN: 1469-1825
  • URL: /core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 9
Total number of PDF views: 91 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 195 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 22nd March 2017 - 12th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.