Hanel Paul Hp, Mehler David Ma
University of Bath, UK.
Cardiff University, UK; University of Münster, Germany.
Public Underst Sci. 2019 May;28(4):468-485. doi: 10.1177/0963662519834193. Epub 2019 Mar 8.
Transparent communication of research is key to foster understanding within and beyond the scientific community. An increased focus on reporting effect sizes in addition to p value-based significance statements or Bayes Factors may improve scientific communication with the general public. Across three studies ( N = 652), we compared subjective informativeness ratings for five effect sizes, Bayes Factor, and commonly used significance statements. Results showed that Cohen's U3 was rated as most informative. For example, 440 participants (69%) found U3 more informative than Cohen's d, while 95 (15%) found d more informative than U3, with 99 participants (16%) finding both effect sizes equally informative. This effect was not moderated by level of education. We therefore suggest that in general, Cohen's U3 is used when scientific findings are communicated. However, the choice of the effect size may vary depending on what a researcher wants to highlight (e.g. differences or similarities).
研究的透明沟通是促进科学界内外理解的关键。除了基于p值的显著性声明或贝叶斯因子外,增加对效应量报告的关注可能会改善与公众的科学沟通。在三项研究(N = 652)中,我们比较了五种效应量、贝叶斯因子和常用显著性声明的主观信息性评级。结果表明,科恩U3被评为信息性最强。例如,440名参与者(69%)认为U3比科恩d更具信息性,而95名(15%)认为d比U3更具信息性,99名参与者(16%)认为两种效应量的信息性相同。这种效应不受教育水平的调节。因此,我们建议,一般来说,在传达科学发现时使用科恩U3。然而,效应量的选择可能会因研究人员想要突出的内容(例如差异或相似性)而有所不同。