Susskind E C, Howland E W
J Gerontol. 1980 Nov;35(6):867-76. doi: 10.1093/geronj/35.6.867.
Many methodologists advocate reporting effect size (ES) measures to assess the importance of observed differences. Unlike significance levels, these measures are independent of sample size. A second use of ES measures, particularly relevant to gerontological research, is to assert the null hypothesis by demonstrating the smallness of an effect. However, ES estimation is problematic in many commonly-used repeated measures ANOVA designs: If the additivity assumption is invalid and the design includes a fixed within-subject factor, the sample estimates of ES will be biased negatively. Our paper offers an alternative estimation procedure that can compensate for that bias. We define the lower and upper bounds of an interval within which lies the unbiased ES estimate. Further, we assert that for most design situations violation of the additivity assumption has a relatively small effect on the ES estimate. In addition, we provide a detailed, concrete example that should facilitate calculation of ES in repeated measures designs.
许多方法论学者主张报告效应量(ES)指标,以评估观察到的差异的重要性。与显著性水平不同,这些指标与样本量无关。效应量指标的第二个用途,尤其与老年学研究相关,是通过证明效应的微小来断言零假设。然而,在许多常用的重复测量方差分析设计中,效应量估计存在问题:如果可加性假设无效且设计包含固定的受试者内因素,效应量的样本估计将产生负偏差。我们的论文提供了一种替代估计程序,可以弥补这种偏差。我们定义了一个区间的下限和上限,无偏差的效应量估计值位于该区间内。此外,我们断言,对于大多数设计情况,违反可加性假设对效应量估计的影响相对较小。此外,我们提供了一个详细、具体的例子,应有助于在重复测量设计中计算效应量。