JMASM9: Converting Kendall's tau for correlational or meta-analytic analyses

Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 525-530

  Walker, David A ^a  

^a NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Effect size; Meta analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 18544386522     PISSN: 15389472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.22237/jmasm/1067646360     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
2. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
3. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003.
4. Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.). (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
5. Ferguson, G. A., & Takane, Y. (1989). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
6. Gibbons, J. D. (1985). Nonparametric methods for quantitative analysis (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: American Sciences Press, Inc.
7. Gilpin, A. R. (1993). Table for conversion of Kendall's tau to Spearman's rho within the context of measures of magnitude of effect for meta-analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 87-92.
8. Henson, R. K., & Smith, A. D. (2000). State of the art in statistical significance and effect size reporting: A review of the APA Task Force report and current trends. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33, 285-296.
9. Kendall, M. G. (1970). Rank correlation methods (4th ed.). London: Charles Griffin & Co.
10. Kirk, R. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 746-759.
11. Knapp, T. R. (1998). Comments on the statistical significance testing articles. Research in Schools, 5, 39-41.
12. Levin, J. R. (1994). Crafting educational intervention research that's both credible and creditable. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 231-243.
13. Roberts, D. M., & Kunst, R. E. (1990). A case against continuing use of the Spearman formula for rank-order correlation. Psychological Reports, 66, 339-349.
14. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 213-244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
15. Rupinski, M. T., & Dunlap, W. P. (1996). Approximating Pearson product-moment correlations from Kendall's tau and Spearman's rho. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 419-429.
16. Shaver, J. (1985). Chance and nonsense. Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 57-60.
17. Smithson, M. (2001). Correct confidence intervals for various regression effect sizes and parameters: The importance of noncentral distributions in computing intervals. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 605-632.
18. Snyder, P., & Lawson, S. (1993). Evaluating results using corrected and uncorrected effect size estimates. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 334-349.
19. Stewart, D. W. (2000). Testing statistical significance testing: Some observations of an agnostic. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 685-690.
20. Strahan, R. F. (1982). Assessing magnitude of effect from rank-order correlation coefficients. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 763-765.
21. Wilkinson, L., & The APA Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604.
22. Wolf, F. M. (1987). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.