Appearance
question:Can you discuss the concept of effect size versus statistical significance?
answer:Effect size and statistical significance are two related but distinct concepts in statistical analysis. Understanding the difference between them is crucial for accurately interpreting research findings. Statistical significance refers to the probability that the observed results, or more extreme results, would occur by chance if there were no real effect. This is often measured using p-values, where a p-value below a certain threshold (commonly set at 0.05) indicates that the results are statistically significant, suggesting that the observed effect is unlikely to be due to chance. Effect size, on the other hand, measures the magnitude or strength of the relationship between variables or the size of the difference between groups. It provides information about the practical significance of the results. A large effect size indicates a substantial difference or relationship, while a small effect size suggests a more trivial effect. The key point is that statistical significance does not necessarily imply a large or meaningful effect size. It's possible to have statistically significant results with very small effect sizes, especially with large sample sizes. This is because large samples provide more precise estimates, making it easier to detect even small effects. Conversely, a small sample size may not detect statistically significant effects, even if the effect size is large. For instance, a study might find a statistically significant difference in the average height of two groups, but the actual difference might be only a fraction of an inch. In this case, the effect size is small, and the practical significance of the finding is limited, despite being statistically significant. To give a more concrete example, consider a study examining the effect of a new teaching method on student test scores. The study finds a statistically significant improvement in test scores (p-value = 0.001), but the actual difference in scores is only 1-2 points on a 100-point scale. The effect size in this case is small, suggesting that the new teaching method has a limited impact on student performance. In summary, while statistical significance is important for determining whether an effect is likely due to chance, effect size is essential for understanding the practical significance and relevance of the findings. Researchers should strive to report and interpret both statistical significance and effect size to provide a comprehensive understanding of their results.
question:How do you calculate effect size?
answer:Calculating effect size depends on the type of data and the specific statistical analysis being performed. Here are some common methods for calculating effect size: 1. **Mean Difference**: When comparing the means of two groups, effect size can be calculated as the standardized mean difference, also known as Cohen's d. This is calculated as: d = (M1 - M2) / SDpooled where M1 and M2 are the means of the two groups, and SDpooled is the pooled standard deviation of the two groups. 2. **Correlation Coefficient**: When examining the relationship between two continuous variables, effect size can be calculated as the correlation coefficient (r). The correlation coefficient ranges from -1 to 1, with larger absolute values indicating stronger relationships. 3. **Odds Ratio**: When examining the relationship between a categorical variable and a binary outcome, effect size can be calculated as the odds ratio (OR). The odds ratio represents the change in odds of the outcome associated with a one-unit change in the predictor variable. 4. **Regression Coefficients**: In regression analysis, effect size can be calculated as the standardized regression coefficient (β). This represents the change in the outcome variable associated with a one-standard-deviation change in the predictor variable. 5. **Eta Squared** (η²) and **Partial Eta Squared** (ηp²): These are measures of effect size used in analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression analysis. They represent the proportion of variance in the outcome variable that is explained by the predictor variable(s). 6. **Hedges' g**: This is a measure of effect size used in meta-analysis, which is similar to Cohen's d but takes into account the sample size and standard error. The interpretation of effect size depends on the specific context and research question. However, here are some general guidelines for interpreting effect sizes: * **Small effect size**: d = 0.2-0.3, r = 0.1-0.3, OR = 1.2-1.5 * **Moderate effect size**: d = 0.5-0.7, r = 0.3-0.5, OR = 1.5-2.5 * **Large effect size**: d = 0.8-1.2, r = 0.5-0.7, OR = 2.5-4.0 Keep in mind that these are general guidelines, and the interpretation of effect size should be based on the specific research context and the practical significance of the findings.
question:Can you give an example of when to use Hedges' g versus Cohen's d.
answer:Both Hedges' g and Cohen's d are measures of effect size that can be used to quantify the difference between two groups. However, they differ in their calculation and are used in slightly different contexts. **Cohen's d** is a widely used measure of effect size that is calculated as: d = (M1 - M2) / SDpooled where M1 and M2 are the means of the two groups, and SDpooled is the pooled standard deviation of the two groups. **Hedges' g** is a variation of Cohen's d that is calculated as: g = d * (1 - (3 / (4 * (n1 + n2 - 2))) where n1 and n2 are the sample sizes of the two groups. The main difference between Hedges' g and Cohen's d is that Hedges' g is a more conservative estimate of effect size, as it takes into account the sample size and standard error. This is particularly important in meta-analyses, where the results of multiple studies are combined. Here's an example of when to use Hedges' g versus Cohen's d: Suppose you are conducting a meta-analysis of 10 studies that examined the effect of a new teaching method on student test scores. Each study compared the test scores of students who received the new teaching method to those who received the standard teaching method. The sample sizes of the studies range from 20 to 100 students per group. In this case, you would use **Hedges' g** to calculate the effect size for each study, as it takes into account the sample size and standard error of each study. This will give you a more conservative estimate of the overall effect size. On the other hand, if you were conducting a single study with a large sample size (e.g., 1000 students per group), you could use **Cohen's d** to calculate the effect size. In this case, the sample size is large enough that the standard error is relatively small, and Cohen's d will provide a reasonable estimate of the effect size. In general, Hedges' g is preferred over Cohen's d in the following situations: * Meta-analyses with small to moderate sample sizes * Studies with large variability in sample sizes * Studies with limited statistical power Cohen's d can be used in studies with large sample sizes and relatively small standard errors. However, it's always a good idea to report both Cohen's d and Hedges' g to provide a more comprehensive picture of the effect size.
question:They are four American friends and seasoned travelers who were hiking through Iraq's Kurdistan region before three of them crossed the unmarked border with Iran, where they were detained by Iranian authorities. Ahmed Awa, on the border of Iraq and Iran, is where police saw and warned the American hikers Friday. Kurdish officials identified the detained hikers as Shane Bauer, Sarah Shourd and Joshua Fattal, CNN confirmed Sunday. The fourth hiker, Shon Meckfessel, stayed behind in Iraq. My husband and I are eager for the best welfare and conditions for our son, Josh, and for the other two companions he's with, Laura Fattal of Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, told CNN Radio. And that is our only concern, his welfare and the best conditions for him. Meckfessel was identified by his grandmother, who told CNN that he stayed behind because he felt sick. Meckfessel is at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. My grandson has asked me not to talk to the media, said the grandmother, Irene Meckfessel of Carmichael, California, before hanging up Saturday. Iran's state-run media reported that Iranian security forces arrested the three Americans Friday for illegally entering the country from Iraq's Kurdistan region and that the matter is under investigation. U.S. State Department officials say the Swiss ambassador to Tehran is seeking information about the case on behalf of Washington. The United States and Iran do not have diplomatic relations and Switzerland represents U.S. diplomatic interests in Iran. Friends of the travelers told CNN that the three who were detained have spent time or have lived in Western Europe and the Middle East. Sandy Close, executive director of the nonprofit Pacific News Service, described Bauer -- a photographer whose material was occasionally posted on her Web site in the past -- as a gifted linguist and photographer with wanderlust for travel and a student of Arab cultures. He's a remarkably talented guy. Shourd described herself as a teacher-activist-writer from California currently based in the Middle East on a profile listed on a travel Web site. Fattal shared his friends' love of travel and learning, and was described as fiercely intellectual by his friend, Chris Foraker, who spoke to CNN affiliate KVAL in Eugene, Oregon. Foraker said he met Fattal during a study abroad program in 2003, and the two worked together at the Aprovecho sustainable living research center in Cottage Grove. The four travelers spent the night at the Nirwan Hotel in Sulaimaniya on Thursday, said Mudhafer Mohammed, the owner of the hotel. Bauer, Shourd and Fattal left early Friday in a taxi for Ahmed Awa, a Kurdish town near Iraq's border with Iran, planning to hike in the mountains there, according to Peshrow Ahmed, spokesman for the security manager of Sulaimaniya. Ahmed Awa police spotted the hikers at one point Friday, Ahmed said, and warned them that they were near the border with Iran -- which is not marked in the area -- and that they should be careful. The group was in contact with Meckfessel in Sulaimaniya until about 1:30 p.m. Friday, when they reported they were surrounded by Iranian soldiers, Ahmed said. No further communication was received. Mohammed, of the Nirwan Hotel, told CNN that the hikers said they had come to the area because they heard it was safe, saying they were considering a trip to Ahmed Awa. But, he said, he advised them against it. I warned them many times, Mohammed told CNN. When they told me that they are planning to go to Ahmed Awa, I told them, 'Don't go there because it is unsafe for you because you're American and Ahmed Awa is very close to the Iranian border,' he said. Meckfessel left the hotel about 4:30 p.m., Mohammed said, asking him to take care of their luggage and saying he would not return. Later, he said, Sulaimaniya security forces took the luggage from the hotel. CNN's Arwa Damon and Susan Candiotti contributed to this report.
answer:Three American hikers—Shane Bauer, Sarah Shourd, and Joshua Fattal—were detained by Iranian authorities on Friday after crossing the unmarked border from Iraq's Kurdistan region. The fourth hiker, Shon Meckfessel, remained in Iraq due to illness and is now at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. The hikers were warned by local police in Ahmed Awa, a town near the border, about the proximity to Iran. Despite the warning, Bauer, Shourd, and Fattal proceeded and were later surrounded by Iranian soldiers. The U.S. State Department is working through the Swiss ambassador in Tehran to gather information, as the U.S. and Iran do not have diplomatic relations. Friends and family of the hikers describe them as experienced travelers with a deep interest in the Middle East and its cultures. Laura Fattal, Joshua's mother, expressed concern for her son's welfare and that of his companions. The incident is under investigation by Iranian authorities.