Recent calls for reporting and interpreting effect sizes have been numerous, with the 5th edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (2001) calling for the inclusion of effect sizes to interpret quantitative findings. Many top journals have required that effect sizes accompany claims of statistical significance. However, too often reports of data analyses in gifted education rely on statistical significance without reporting effect size indices to help interpret quantitative findings. Without a supporting effect size index, erroneous interpretation of results can occur. This Methodological Brief addresses this concern and provides examples and guidance concerning using effect sizes in gifted education quantitative research.
American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
2.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003.
4.
Cohen, J. (1997). The earth is round (p < .05). In L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik, & J. H. Steiger (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 21-35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.). (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
6.
Daniel. L.G. (1998). Statistical significance testing: A historical overview of misuse and misinterpretation with implications for the editorial policies of educational journals. Research in the Schools , 4(2), 23-32.
7.
Gentry, M., Gable, R.K., & Rizza, M.G. (2002). Students' perceptions of classrooms activities: Are there grade level and gender differences? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 539-544.
8.
Grissom, R.J., & Kim, J.J. (2005). Effect sizes for research: A broad practical approach . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
Huberty, C.J. (2002). A history of effect size indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 227-240.
10.
Matthews, M.S., Gentry, M., McCoach, D.B., Worrell, F.C., Matthews, D.M., & Dixon, F. (2008). Evaluating the state of a field: Effect size reporting in gifted education. Journal of Experimental Education, 55-68
11.
Paul, K.M., & Plucker, J.A. (2004). Two steps forward, one step back: Effect size reporting in gifted education research from 1995-2000. Roeper Review, 26, 68-72.
12.
Plucker, J.A. (1997). Debunking the myth of the `highly significant' result: Effect sizes in gifted education research. Roeper Review, 20, 122-126.
13.
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R.L., & Rubin, D.B. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, B. (1999). Improving research clarity and usefulness with effect size indices as supplements to statistical significance test. Exceptional Children, 65, 329-337.
16.
Thompson, B. (2002). What future quantitative social science research could look like: Confidence intervals for effect sizes. Educational Researcher, 31(3), 25-32.
17.
Thompson, B. (2006). Research synthesis: Effect sizes. In J. Green, C. Camilli , & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 481-501). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association .
18.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Robinson, N.M., Coleman, L.J., Shore, B.M., Subotnik, R.F. (2006). A report card on the state of research in the field of gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 339-355.
19.
Wilkinson, L., & Task Force onStatistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations, American Psychologist , 54, 594-604.
