Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

On the misinterpretation of effect size

On the misinterpretation of effect size Educational Studies in Mathematics (2020) 103:125–133 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09924-4 Adrian Simpson Published online: 10 December 2019 Springer Nature B.V. 2019 I was partly heartened to read the editorial on effect sizes (Bakker et al., 2019). That editors of some of the major journals in mathematics education have brought together emerging concerns about the use and interpretation of effect size in education research for a wider audience is clearly of value. However, the editorial includes some misconceptions about the measure, cites some flawed arguments and perpetuates an interpretation of effect size (albeit in a more nuanced form) which is not helpful for the field. The thrust of the editorial is to suggest alternative guidelines for using effect size, particularly for programme evaluation research, with a view to being able to answer the question “is the effect large enough to be useful?” The suggestions involve either using alternative benchmarks or, ideally, contexualising an effect size against comparable studies. The editorial outlines twelve issues for consideration in setting those benchmarks or in interpreting the effect size in context. Underpinning the editorial appears to be a particular interpretation of effect size as a measure of the intervention: i.e., larger effect sizes indicate interventions which are http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Educational Studies in Mathematics Springer Journals

On the misinterpretation of effect size

Educational Studies in Mathematics , Volume 103 (1) – Jan 10, 2020

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/on-the-misinterpretation-of-effect-size-Kl5kngsH5V

References (25)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © Springer Nature B.V. 2019
Subject
Education; Mathematics Education; Mathematics, general
ISSN
0013-1954
eISSN
1573-0816
DOI
10.1007/s10649-019-09924-4
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Educational Studies in Mathematics (2020) 103:125–133 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09924-4 Adrian Simpson Published online: 10 December 2019 Springer Nature B.V. 2019 I was partly heartened to read the editorial on effect sizes (Bakker et al., 2019). That editors of some of the major journals in mathematics education have brought together emerging concerns about the use and interpretation of effect size in education research for a wider audience is clearly of value. However, the editorial includes some misconceptions about the measure, cites some flawed arguments and perpetuates an interpretation of effect size (albeit in a more nuanced form) which is not helpful for the field. The thrust of the editorial is to suggest alternative guidelines for using effect size, particularly for programme evaluation research, with a view to being able to answer the question “is the effect large enough to be useful?” The suggestions involve either using alternative benchmarks or, ideally, contexualising an effect size against comparable studies. The editorial outlines twelve issues for consideration in setting those benchmarks or in interpreting the effect size in context. Underpinning the editorial appears to be a particular interpretation of effect size as a measure of the intervention: i.e., larger effect sizes indicate interventions which are

Journal

Educational Studies in MathematicsSpringer Journals

Published: Jan 10, 2020

There are no references for this article.