Editorial Perspective: When is a 'small effect' actually large and impactful?
Saved in:
| Title: | Editorial Perspective: When is a 'small effect' actually large and impactful? |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Carey, Emma Grace, Ridler, Isobel, Ford, Tamsin Jane, Stringaris, Argyris |
| Source: | Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry. Nov2023, Vol. 64 Issue 11, p1643-1647. 5p. |
| Subjects: | Psychiatry, Effect sizes (Statistics), Simulation methods in education, Data analysis, Evaluation |
| Abstract: | Reporting of effect sizes is standard practice in psychology and psychiatry research. However, interpretation of these effect sizes can be meaningless or misleading – in particular, the evaluation of specific effect sizes as 'small', 'medium' and 'large' can be inaccurate depending on the research context. A real‐world example of this is research into the mental health of children and young people during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Evidence suggests that clinicians and services are struggling with increased demand, yet population studies looking at the difference in mental health before and during the pandemic report effect sizes that are deemed 'small'. In this short review, we utilise simulations to demonstrate that a relatively small shift in mean scores on mental health measures can indicate a large shift in the number of cases of anxiety and depression when scaled up to an entire population. This shows that 'small' effect sizes can in some contexts be large and impactful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Reporting of effect sizes is standard practice in psychology and psychiatry research. However, interpretation of these effect sizes can be meaningless or misleading – in particular, the evaluation of specific effect sizes as 'small', 'medium' and 'large' can be inaccurate depending on the research context. A real‐world example of this is research into the mental health of children and young people during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Evidence suggests that clinicians and services are struggling with increased demand, yet population studies looking at the difference in mental health before and during the pandemic report effect sizes that are deemed 'small'. In this short review, we utilise simulations to demonstrate that a relatively small shift in mean scores on mental health measures can indicate a large shift in the number of cases of anxiety and depression when scaled up to an entire population. This shows that 'small' effect sizes can in some contexts be large and impactful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00219630 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/jcpp.13817 |
