|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
The Effects of Nonnormal Distributions on Confidence Intervals Around the Standardized Mean Difference: Bootstrap and Parametric Confidence Intervals
Ken Kelley
University of Notre Dame, kkelley{at}nd.edu
The standardized group mean difference, Cohens d, is among the most commonly used and intuitively appealing effect sizes for group comparisons. However, reporting this point estimate alone does not reflect the extent to which sampling error may have led to an obtained value. A confidence interval expresses the uncertainty that exists between d and the population value, , it represents. A set of Monte Carlo simulations was conducted to examine the integrity of a noncentral approach analogous to that given by Steiger and Fouladi, as well as two bootstrap approaches in situations in which the normality assumption is violated. Because d is positively biased, a procedure given by Hedges and Olkin is outlined, such that an unbiased estimate of can be obtained. The bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap confidence interval using the unbiased estimate of is proposed and recommended for general use, especially in cases in which the assumption of normality may be violated.
Key Words: effect size standardized effect size confidence intervals bootstrap methods nonnormal data
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 65, No. 1,
51-69 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0013164404264850

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
L. Z. Garamszegi, S. Calhim, N. Dochtermann, G. Hegyi, P. L. Hurd, C. Jorgensen, N. Kutsukake, M. J. Lajeunesse, K. A. Pollard, H. Schielzeth, et al.
Changing philosophies and tools for statistical inferences in behavioral ecology
Behav. Ecol.,
November 2, 2009;
(2009)
arp137v1.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
J. Algina, H. J. Keselman, and R. D. Penfield
Confidence Interval Coverage for Cohen's Effect Size Statistic
Educational and Psychological Measurement,
December 1, 2006;
66(6):
945 - 960.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|
|