Improved confidence intervals for differences between standardized effect sizes.

IF 7.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Psychological methods Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2022-04-11 DOI:10.1037/met0000494
Kevin D Bird
{"title":"Improved confidence intervals for differences between standardized effect sizes.","authors":"Kevin D Bird","doi":"10.1037/met0000494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An evaluation of a difference between effect sizes from two dependent variables in a single study is likely to be based on differences between standard scores if raw scores on those variables are not scaled in comparable units of measurement. The standardization used for this purpose is usually sample-based rather than population-based, but the consequences of this distinction for the construction of confidence intervals on differential effects have not been systematically examined. In this article I show that differential effect confidence intervals (CIs) constructed from differences between the standard scores produced by sample-based standardization can be too narrow when those effects are large and dependent variables are highly correlated, particularly in within-subjects designs. I propose a new approach to the construction of differential effect CIs based on differences between adjusted sample-based standard scores that allow conventional CI procedures to produce Bonett-type CIs (Bonett, 2008) on individual effects. Computer simulations show that differential effect CIs constructed from adjusted standard scores can provide much better coverage probabilities than CIs constructed from unadjusted standard scores. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":"28 5","pages":"1142-1153"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000494","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/4/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

An evaluation of a difference between effect sizes from two dependent variables in a single study is likely to be based on differences between standard scores if raw scores on those variables are not scaled in comparable units of measurement. The standardization used for this purpose is usually sample-based rather than population-based, but the consequences of this distinction for the construction of confidence intervals on differential effects have not been systematically examined. In this article I show that differential effect confidence intervals (CIs) constructed from differences between the standard scores produced by sample-based standardization can be too narrow when those effects are large and dependent variables are highly correlated, particularly in within-subjects designs. I propose a new approach to the construction of differential effect CIs based on differences between adjusted sample-based standard scores that allow conventional CI procedures to produce Bonett-type CIs (Bonett, 2008) on individual effects. Computer simulations show that differential effect CIs constructed from adjusted standard scores can provide much better coverage probabilities than CIs constructed from unadjusted standard scores. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

改进了标准化效应大小之间差异的置信区间。
如果在一项研究中,两个因变量的原始得分没有以可比的测量单位进行缩放,那么对两个因变数的影响大小之间差异的评估可能是基于标准得分之间的差异。用于此目的的标准化通常是基于样本的,而不是基于人群的,但这种区分对差异效应置信区间构建的影响尚未得到系统的检验。在这篇文章中,我展示了由基于样本的标准化产生的标准分数之间的差异构建的差异效应置信区间(CI),当这些影响很大且因变量高度相关时,尤其是在受试者内部设计中,可能会太窄。我提出了一种基于调整后的基于样本的标准分数之间的差异构建差异效应CI的新方法,该方法允许传统CI程序产生关于个体效应的Bonett型CI(Bonett,2008)。计算机模拟表明,由调整后的标准分数构建的差异效应CI比由未调整的标准分数构造的CI可以提供更好的覆盖概率。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological methods
Psychological methods PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信