Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-r8qmj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-14T23:02:30.145Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2017

David Trafimow  and
Yogesh J. Raut
David Trafimow
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001. dtrafimo@nmsu.edu yraut@nmsu.edu http://psych.nmsu.edu/faculty/trafimow/
Yogesh J. Raut
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001. dtrafimo@nmsu.edu yraut@nmsu.edu http://psych.nmsu.edu/faculty/trafimow/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e15
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allen, M. J. & Yen, W. M. (1979) Introduction to measurement theory. Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Gulliksen, H. (1987) Theory of mental tests. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
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 Google Scholar
Jussim, L. (2012) Social perception and social reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, F. M. & Novick, M. R. (1968) Statistical theories of mental test scores. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R. L. (1991) Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar