Evaluating the state of a field: Effect size reporting in gifted education

Journal of Experimental Education

Volumn 77, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 55-68

  Matthews, Michael S ^a   Gentry, Marcia ^b   McCoach, Betsy ^c   Worrell, Frank C ^d   Matthews, Dona ^e   Dixon, Felicia ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

^b PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^f BALL STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Editorial policy; Effect size reporting; Gifted education; Research methods

Indexed keywords

EID: 67649535001     PISSN: 00220973     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/JEXE.77.1.55-68     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 33-40.
2. American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
3. American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
4. Asher, W. (1986). Conducting research with meta-analysis: A new direction for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 7-10.
5. Cohen, J. (1997). The earth is round (p <.05). In L. L. Harlow, S. A. Mulaik, & J. H. Steiger (Eds.), What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 21-35). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Press.
6. Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.). (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
7. Daniel, L. G. (1998). Statistical significance testing: A historical overview of misuse and misinterpretation with implications for the editorial policies of educational journals. Research in the Schools, 4(2), 23-32.
8. Grissom, R. J., & Kim, J. J. (2005). Effect sizes for research: A broad practical approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Press.
9. Huberty, C. J. (2002). A history of effect size indices. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 227-240.
10. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C.-L. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 73-77.
11. Olejnik, S., & Algina, J. (2000). Measures of effect size for comparative studies: Applications, interpretations, and limitations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(3), 241-286.
12. Paul, K. M., & Plucker, J. A. (2004). Two steps forward, one step back: Effect size reporting in gifted education research from 1995-2000. Roeper Review, 26(2), 68-72.
13. Pfeiffer, S. I. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for students who are gifted: What the experts say. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 161-169.
14. Plucker, J. A. (1997). Debunking the myth of the 'highly significant' result: Effect sizes in gifted education research. Roeper Review, 20(2), 122-126.
15. Thompson, B. (1996). AERA editorial policies regarding statistical significance testing: Three suggested reforms. Educational Researcher, 25, 26-30.
16. Thompson, B. (2002). What future quantitative social science research could look like: Confidence intervals for effect sizes. Educational Researcher, 31(3), 25-32.
17. Thompson, B. (2006). Foundations of behavioral statistics: An insight-based approach. New York: Guilford.
18. Thompson, B. (2007). Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and confidence intervals for effect sizes. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 423-432.
19. Thompson, B., Diamond, K. E., McWilliam, R., Snyder, P., & Snyder, S. W. (2005). Evaluating the quality of evidence from correlational research for evidence-based practice. Exceptional Children, 71, 181-194.
20. Vacha-Haase, T., & Thompson, B. (2004). How to estimate and interpret various effect sizes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 473-481.
21. Wilkinson, L., & the APA Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604.