Effect size statistics are all the rage these days.
Journal editors are demanding them. Committees won’t pass dissertations without them.
But the reason to compute them is not just that someone wants them — they can truly help you understand your data analysis.
What Is an Effect Size Statistic?
And yes, these definitely qualify. But the concept of an effect size statistic is actually much broader. Here’s a description from a nice article on effect size statistics:
If you think about it, many familiar statistics fit this description. Regression coefficients give information about the magnitude and direction of the relationship between two variables. So do correlation coefficients. (more…)
One of the most difficult steps in calculating sample size estimates is determining the smallest scientifically meaningful effect size.
Here’s the logic:
The power of every significance test is based on four things: the alpha level, the size of the effect, the amount of variation in the data, and the sample size.
You will measure the effect size in question differently, depending on which statistical test you’re performing. It could be a mean difference, a difference in proportions, a correlation, regression slope, odds ratio, etc.
When you’re planning a study and estimating the sample size needed for (more…)
Exact and randomization tests are simple from a conceptual level and need fewer assumptions than traditional parametric tests. They do require substantial computing power, but nothing that can’t be handled by the computer you have today. (more…)
If you’ve ever run a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), you’re familiar with post-hoc tests. The ANOVA omnibus test only tells you whether any groups differ in their means. But if you want to explore which specific group mean is different from which, you need to follow up with a post-hoc test. (more…)
One big advantage of R is its breadth. If anything has been done in statistics, there is an R package that will do it.
The problem is that sometimes there are four packages that will do it. This is big problem with R (and with Python for that matter). (more…)
When you need to compare a numeric outcome for two groups, what analysis do you think of first? Chances are, it’s the independent samples t-test. But that’s not the only, or always, the best option. In many situations, the Mann-Whitney U test is a better option.
The non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test is also called the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test, or the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Non-parametric means that the hypothesis it’s testing is not about the parameter of a particular distribution.
It is part of a subgroup of non-parametric tests that are rank based. That means that the specific values of the outcomes are not important, only their order. In other words, we will be ranking the outcomes.
Like the t-test, this analysis tests whether two independent groups have similar typical outcomes. You can use it with numeric data, but unlike the t-test, it also works with ordinal data. Like the t-test, it is designed for comparisons, and not for estimation or prediction.
The biggest difference from the t-test is that it does not compare means. The Mann-Whitney U test determines whether a random observation from one group tends to be higher (or lower) than a random observation from the other group. Imagine choosing two observations, one from each group, over and over again. This test will determine whether one group is more likely to have the higher values.
It has many advantages: It is a straightforward comparison of means. There are versions for similar and different variances in the two groups. Many people are familiar with it.
(more…)
When many of us hear “Effect Size Statistic,” we immediately think we need one of a few statistics: Eta-squared, Cohen’s d, R-squared.