New approaches for estimation of effect sizes and their confidence intervals for treatment effects from randomized controlled trials

被引:18
作者
Feingold, Alan [1 ]
机构
[1] Oregon Social Learning Ctr, 207 E 5Th Ave Suite 202, Eugene, OR 97401 USA
来源
QUANTITATIVE METHODS FOR PSYCHOLOGY | 2019年 / 15卷 / 02期
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
effect sizes; condence intervals; multilevel analysis; latent growth models; STANDARDIZED EFFECT SIZES; GROWTH; MULTILEVEL; MEDIATION; METAANALYSIS; MODELS;
D O I
10.20982/tqmp.15.2.p096
中图分类号
C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ;
摘要
Although Cohen's d and the growth modeling analysis (GMA) d from linear models are common standardized effect sizes used to convey treatment effects, popular statistical software packages do not include them in their standard outputs. This article demonstrated the use of statistical software with user-prescribed parameter functions (e.g., Mplus) to produce d for treatment effects from both classical analysis and GMA-along with their associated standard errors (SEs) and confidence intervals (CIs). A Monte Carlo study was conducted to examine bias in the SE and CI for GMA d obtained with Mplus and found that both estimates were more accurate when calculated by the software with the standard bootstrap than with the delta method, but the delta method estimates were less biased than respective estimates from extant post hoc equations. Thus, users of many statistical software packages (including SAS, R, and LISREL) should obtain d or GMA d and associated CIs directly. Researchers employing less versatile software-and meta-analysts including ds and GMA ds in their syntheses of treatment effects-should continue to use the conventional post hoc equations. Biases in SEs and CIs for effect sizes obtained with them are ignorable and point estimates of d and GMA d are the same whether obtained directly from the software or with post hoc equations.
引用
收藏
页码:96 / 111
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Standardized or simple effect size: What should be reported?
    Baguley, Thom
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2009, 100 : 603 - 617
  • [2] Banjanovic ES., 2016, PRACTICAL ASSESSMENT, V21, P1, DOI [10.7275/dz3r-8n08, DOI 10.7275/DZ3R-8N08]
  • [3] A DELTA METHOD FOR IMPLICITLY DEFINED RANDOM-VARIABLES
    BENICHOU, J
    GAIL, MH
    [J]. AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, 1989, 43 (01) : 41 - 44
  • [4] Bollen K. A., 2006, J WILEY
  • [5] BOOTSTRAPPING GOODNESS-OF-FIT MEASURES IN STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELS
    BOLLEN, KA
    STINE, RA
    [J]. SOCIOLOGICAL METHODS & RESEARCH, 1992, 21 (02) : 205 - 229
  • [6] Borenstein M., 2009, INTRO META ANAL, DOI [10.1002/9780470743386.ch12, DOI 10.1002/9780470743386, 10.1002/9780470743386]
  • [7] Comparison of methods for constructing confidence intervals of standardized indirect effects
    Cheung, Mike W. -L.
    [J]. BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2009, 41 (02) : 425 - 438
  • [8] Child STEPs in California: A Cluster Randomized Effectiveness Trial Comparing Modular Treatment With Community Implemented Treatment for Youth With Anxiety, Depression, Conduct Problems, or Traumatic Stress
    Chorpita, Bruce F.
    Daleiden, Eric L.
    Park, Alayna L.
    Ward, Alyssa M.
    Levy, Michelle C.
    Cromley, Taya
    Chiu, Angela W.
    Letamendi, Andrea M.
    Tsai, Katherine H.
    Krull, Jennifer L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CONSULTING AND CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2017, 85 (01) : 13 - 25
  • [9] Cohen J., 2003, APPL MULTIPLE REGRES, P3
  • [10] Cumming G., 2013, UNDERSTANDING NEW ST