5 Understanding Standardized Mean Differences (Cohen’s d) ✎ Draft
5.1 Means and Standard Deviations
Standardised effect sizes are built from means and standard deviations, so it helps to have a feel for what each of them describes. The plot below shows a single sample as a normal distribution. Use the sliders to change its mean and its SD. The mean sets where the distribution sits, and is marked by the dashed line. The SD sets how spread out the distribution is: the bar marks the scores within one SD of the mean.
A normal distribution has no minimum or maximum, but most scales in psychology do: a 1–7 Likert item cannot produce a response of 0 or of 8. Set the mean to 6 and the SD to 2, and a large part of the distribution lies above 7. A sample on a 1–7 scale could not look like this. On a bounded scale, the closer the mean is to either end, the smaller the largest possible SD becomes, which is taken up in Section 8.1.
5.2 Standardized Mean Differences (Cohen’s d)
Cohen’s d for two independent groups is the difference between their means divided by their pooled standard deviation:
\[ d = \frac{M_1 - M_2}{SD_{pooled}}, \qquad SD_{pooled} = \sqrt{\frac{(n_1 - 1)SD_1^2 + (n_2 - 1)SD_2^2}{n_1 + n_2 - 2}} \]
Because Cohen’s d is a difference between two means in SD units, it can be pictured as the distance between two distributions relative to how wide they are. The plot below shows a control condition and an intervention condition as two normal distributions with the same SD. The three sliders are linked by d = mean difference / SD. Change Cohen’s d and the mean difference changes to match; change the mean difference or the SD and Cohen’s d changes to match. See how far apart the two distributions are, and how much they overlap, for effect sizes of different magnitudes, and notice that the same d can come from a small difference between narrow distributions or a large difference between wide ones. Two other ways of expressing the same effect size are shown under the plot: the percentage of the two distributions that overlaps, and the probability of superiority, which is the probability that a randomly chosen participant from the intervention condition scores higher than a randomly chosen participant from the control condition. Both assume normal distributions with equal SDs. This plot is a simplified version of the interactive visualisation by Kristoffer Magnusson at rpsychologist.com/cohend.
Even effect sizes that are conventionally described as large leave the two distributions overlapping substantially: at d = 0.8, about 21% of participants in the control condition score higher than the average participant in the intervention condition. The picture changes quickly as d increases. At d = 2, only about 2% of the control condition scores above the intervention condition’s mean, and at d = 3 the two distributions overlap only in their tails. This is one reason why very large reported effect sizes deserve scrutiny: they describe a situation in which almost every participant in one condition scored higher than the average participant in the other.
5.3 When standarization is useful
The same construct is often measured with different scales, and different scales have different units. Depression, for example, is commonly measured with the BDI-II, which ranges from 0 to 63, the PHQ-9, which ranges from 0 to 27, and the HAM-D, which ranges from 0 to 52. A difference of 5 points between two groups means something different on each of them, so results from studies that used different scales cannot be compared or combined in their original units.
The plot below shows these three scales. Each row shows a scale’s logical range, with the distributions of a control condition and an intervention condition from a hypothetical trial of a treatment for depression drawn on it with the same SD. The distributions are beta distributions, rescaled to the range of each scale, with parameters calculated from the mean and SD by the method of moments; unlike normal distributions, they cannot run past the ends of the scale. The values are illustrative, not taken from particular studies. Lower scores mean less severe depression, so a negative difference favours the intervention. The panel underneath shows the difference between the two means on each scale, in whichever units are selected, with its 95% confidence interval. Each trial is assumed to have 60 participants per condition. The buttons re-express the same three trials in different units:
- Scale units are the original units of each scale.
- SD units divide every score by that sample’s standard deviation. This is the standardisation used by Cohen’s d and other standardised mean differences.
Switch between them and pay attention to what lines up and what does not.
In scale points, the three trials appear to have found very different effects: 6 points, 2.5 points, and 3.3 points. In SD units, they are d = −0.60, −0.50, and −0.55, which is what we might expect from three trials of the same treatment. Standardising has not made the three results identical, and it should not: it has only put them in the same units so that they can be compared.
Standardising by the SD makes one thing comparable across scales: the unit. One SD is the same length on every scale, so in SD units the distributions on all three scales have the same width, which is what allows a mean difference of 6 points on the BDI-II to be compared with a mean difference of 2.5 points on the PHQ-9. It does not make anything else comparable. The three trials still have different means in SD units, and the scales still have different ranges. Note also that the unit is a property of the sample, not of the scale: a study that recruited a more homogeneous sample would have a smaller SD, and the same difference in scale points would become a larger standardised difference (see Section 5.4).
5.4 When standardization obscures: Range restriction
Standardisation solves one problem and creates another. Because Cohen’s d divides the mean difference by the SD of the sample, anything that changes the SD changes d, even when the effect of the intervention in scale points is exactly the same. The SD of a sample depends on who was recruited. A trial that accepts anyone with a diagnosis of depression will include a wide range of severity. A trial with narrow inclusion criteria, for example one that only accepts patients whose baseline scores fall within a particular band, will include a much narrower range. This is called range restriction, and it shrinks the SD.
The plot below shows two hypothetical trials that used the same scale, the BDI-II, and found exactly the same difference between the intervention and control conditions: 5 points. Study A recruited a sample with a wide range of severity, and Study B recruited a sample with a restricted range. Use the slider to change how restricted Study B’s sample is. The top panel shows the two studies’ distributions in scale units, and the panel underneath shows each study’s standardised mean difference, Cohen’s d, with its 95% confidence interval. As in the previous plot, each trial is assumed to have 60 participants per condition.
The intervention did exactly the same thing in both studies: it lowered scores by 5 points. In the default setting, Study B’s d is nevertheless twice the size of Study A’s, and a reader comparing the two standardised effect sizes would conclude that the intervention worked twice as well in Study B. The difference between the two values of d comes entirely from who was recruited.
This has several implications for trustworthiness assessment:
- A standardised effect size cannot be interpreted without knowing the SD it was standardised by. When an effect size seems implausibly large, check whether the SDs are unusually small for that scale, compared with other studies of similar populations.
- Standardised effect sizes from studies with different inclusion criteria are not directly comparable, even when the studies used the same scale. When the studies did use the same scale, the mean difference in scale points is often the more informative comparison.
- Range restriction is only one of the things that change the SD. Others include the reliability of the measure, floor and ceiling effects, and which SD was used as the standardiser (for example, the baseline SD, the pooled SD at post-treatment, or the SD of change scores).