|
Abstract:
|
Effect size reporting has been recommended by methodologists and professional associations for a long time (APA 2001, 2010; AERA, 2006, Cohen, 1988, 1994; Kirk, 1996; Thompson, 1996, 2006). The American Psychological Association Publication Manual (2010) stated that "it is almost always necessary to include some measure of effect size in the Results section" (p. 34). Various empirical studies on effect size reporting and interpreting and how to guidelines are published to encourage appropriate reporting of effect sizes (Vacha-Haase & Thompson, 2004; Alhija & Levy, 2009; Pederson, 2003; Sun, Pan, & Wang, 2010). Based on the methodological changes and reporting requirements recommended it is essential to assess current effect size reporting and interpreting practices in the field of higher education. The purpose of this study is to investigate effect size reporting and interpreting practices in empirical articles published in three core higher education journals. An effect size (e.g., Cohen's d, Glass' ?, Hedge's g, ?2 adjusted r2¬ or adjusted R2, ?2) is an estimate of the magnitude of a difference or a relationship in a population calculated in a sample statistic.
|