8 Effect size methods: SMD/Cohen’s d ✎ Draft
8.1 Influence of scale bounds on SMDs
The plot above assumes normal distributions, which have no minimum or maximum. Real scales do, and this limits which effect sizes are possible. On a bounded scale, the closer a mean is to the end of the scale, the smaller its SD has to be. A large Cohen’s d requires two means that are many SDs apart, but on a bounded scale the means can only move so far apart before one of them is too close to the end of the scale to have the SD that was reported.
The plot below shows this. Set the logical minimum and maximum of the scale, the SD of both conditions in scale units, and Cohen’s d. The two conditions start at the middle of the scale and move apart as d increases, so that their means are always d × SD scale points apart. Each of the two buttons switches between two settings, and is labelled with the setting that clicking it will change to. The first chooses how the conditions move apart: at first the control condition stays in the middle of the scale and only the intervention condition moves, and the alternative is that both conditions move away from the middle by the same amount. The second chooses the direction of the effect: at first the intervention increases scores, so that Cohen’s d is positive, and the alternative is that it decreases them, so that d is negative. Each condition is drawn as a beta distribution, rescaled to the range of the scale, whose parameters are calculated from its mean and SD by the method of moments. The message under the plot says whether the combination you have chosen is possible.
The message under the plot distinguishes three situations. The combination is possible with ordinary hump-shaped distributions. Or it is possible only if at least one condition’s scores are piled up against one end of the scale, as happens with floor and ceiling effects; because such a pile is a spike that runs off the top of the plot, it is labelled with the share of that condition’s participants who would have the highest or lowest possible score. Or it is not possible.
The plot treats a combination as not possible once either condition’s scores would have to be split between the two ends of the scale, with most at one end and a few at the other. Strictly, such data could exist. The absolute limit, which applies to any distribution and not only to beta distributions, is that a sample with a given mean on a scale from min to max cannot have a variance greater than (mean − min) × (max − mean), and this is only reached when every score is at one end of the scale or the other. The limit used by the plot is somewhat stricter than this, because data split between the two ends of a scale are not a plausible description of responses to that scale. One consequence is that the plot treats any SD larger than that of scores spread evenly across the whole scale, which is the range divided by √12, as not possible at all.
Try increasing the SD: the larger the SD relative to the range of the scale, the smaller the largest possible d. The largest possible d is also only half as large when the control condition’s mean stays in the middle of the scale, because only the intervention condition’s mean can then move towards the end of the scale. When an article reports a large standardised effect on a bounded scale, it is worth checking whether the reported means and SDs are compatible with the scale at all.
8.2 Statistical distribution of SMD effect sizes
Whether a reported effect size is plausible depends on more than the size of the true effect. The effect size observed in any one study also depends on sampling error, which is larger in small studies, and on how much the true effect varies between studies. The dance of the p-values (Section 4.4.0.1) showed how much the effect size and p-value of a study vary from one sample to the next, even when nothing about the true effect changes. Taken together, these determine the range within which the observed effect size of a single study can be expected to fall.
The plot below shows this range for Cohen’s d from a two-group design, as a function of the total sample size. For each sample size, it simulates 40,000 studies. Each study’s true standardised mean difference is drawn from a normal distribution with mean μ and standard deviation τ (the between-study heterogeneity). The study’s observed d is then drawn from its sampling distribution, with the total sample split equally between the two groups, with the usual correction for small-sample bias applied. The dashed line shows the mean true effect μ, and the bands show the 95%, 99%, and 99.9% prediction intervals: the ranges within which 95%, 99%, and 99.9% of studies’ observed effect sizes fall.
95%, 99%, and 99.9% prediction intervals (darkest to lightest bands) of an observed d.
Several things are worth trying:
- At small sample sizes, the intervals are wide: a study with a total N of 20 can easily observe an effect twice the size of the true effect, or an effect in the opposite direction. Large observed effects in small studies are therefore not surprising on their own.
- The intervals narrow quickly as the sample size increases. An observed d of 2 or more in a study with several hundred participants falls far outside the 99% interval unless the true effect is itself very large. Increase μ to find out how large the true effect would have to be before such a result became plausible, and consider whether an effect of that size is credible for the phenomenon in question.
- Increasing the heterogeneity τ widens the intervals at every sample size, including large ones, because it represents real differences between studies’ true effects and not sampling error.
An observed effect size that falls outside the 99% interval for its sample size, under generous assumptions about the true effect and its heterogeneity, is unlikely to have arisen from a correctly calculated result. It is then worth checking for the common errors described below.
8.3 Empirical distributions of SMD effect sizes
TODO
- Distributions of d, r, partial eta-squared, etc.
- For different types of phenomena/tests (e.g., interventions vs manipulation checks)
- For different fields
- Avoiding ever saying “domain knowledge”
8.4 Cohen’s d explorer
The app below lets you build two samples on the same scale: an intervention condition and a control condition. Set the logical minimum and maximum of the scale, and then set the number of observations at each response option in either of two ways. First, you can draw each distribution: click anywhere in a column to set its bar to that height, or hold the mouse button down and drag across the plot to draw the whole histogram in one movement. The vertical axis rescales when you release, so dragging a bar to the top of the plot makes room for larger counts. Second, you can type the exact number of observations for each response option into the boxes under the axis. The scale can have up to 100 points; with more than 25, the boxes are not shown, because the columns are too narrow for them. The estimates below the two conditions update as you go, each with its 95% confidence interval. They are plotted in three groups, each with its own axis: the two means and the difference between them (intervention minus control), the two SDs and the pooled SD, and the standardised mean difference, Cohen’s d. The first two groups are in the units of the scale, whereas d is in standard deviations. The interval for the mean difference uses the t distribution, the interval for the pooled SD uses the chi-squared distribution, and the interval for d uses the noncentral t distribution, as in the worked example in Section 7.1. Try changing only the spread of the two samples while keeping their means the same, to see how much d depends on the standard deviation, and try to find the largest d that the scale allows.
8.5 Maximum positive controls and intuition benchmarks
- Using known effects as anchors for plausibility assessment