Effect sizes and the interpretation of research results in international business

Journal of International Business Studies

Volumn 41, Issue 9, 2010, Pages 1581-1588

  Ellis, Paul D ^a  

^a HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

effect size; evaluation of current empirical approaches; meta analysis; statistical power; theory method intersection

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649583510     PISSN: 00472506     EISSN: 14786990     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1057/jibs.2010.39     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Abraham, W. T., & Russell, D. W. 2008. Statistical power analysis in psychological research. Social and Personality Compass, 2(1): 283-301.
2. AERA. 2006. Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publications. http://www.aera.net/opportunities/?id=1850. Accessed 11 September 2008.
3. APA. 2001. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
4. APA. 2010. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
5. Baggs, J., & Brander, J. A. 2006. Trade liberalization, profitability, and financial leverage. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(2): 196-211.
6. Barden, J. Q., Steensma, H. K., & Lyles, M. A. 2005. The influence of parent control structure on parent conflict in Vietnamese international joint ventures: An organizational justice-based contingency approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(2): 156-174.
7. Brock, J. 2003. The "power" of international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1): 90-99.
8. Campbell, J. P. 1982. Editorial: Some remarks from the outgoing editor. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(6): 691-700.
9. Campion, M. A. 1993. Article review checklist: A criterion checklist for reviewing research articles in applied psychology. Personnel Psychology, 46(3): 705-718.
10. Cano, C. R., Carrillat, F. A., & Jaramillo, F. 2004. A meta-analysis of the relationship between market orientation and business performance: Evidence from five continents. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(2): 179-200.
11. Carver, R. P. 1978. The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard Educational Review, 48(3): 378-399.
12. Cashen, L. H., & Geiger, S. W. 2004. Statistical power and the testing of null hypotheses: A review of contemporary management research and recommendations for future studies. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2): 151-167.
13. Child, J., Chung, L., & Davies, H. 2003. The performance of cross-border units in China: A test of natural selection, strategic choice and contingency theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(3): 242-254.
14. Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power for the behavioral analysis, (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15. Combs, J. G. 2010. Big samples and small effects: Let's not trade relevance and rigor for power. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1): 9-13.
16. Cortina, J. M., & Dunlap, W. P. 1997. On the logic and purpose of significance testing. Psychological Methods, 2(2): 161-172.
17. Cumming, G., & Finch, S. 2005. Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist, 60(2): 170-180.
18. Cummings, T. G. 2007. 2006 presidential address: Quest for an engaged academy. Academy of Management Review, 32(2): 355-360.
19. Ellis, P. D. 2007. Distance, dependence and diversity of markets: Effects on market orientation. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(3): 374-386.
20. Ellis, P. D. 2008. Does psychic distance moderate the market size-entry sequence relationship? Journal of International Business Studies, 39(3): 351-369.
21. Ellis, P. D. 2010a. Effect size FAQs. http://www.effectsizefaq.com. Accessed 2 June 2010.
22. Ellis, P. D. 2010b. The essential guide to effect sizes: An introduction to statistical power, meta-analysis and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23. Hambrick, D. C. 1994. 1993 Presidential Address: What if the academy actually mattered? Academy of Management Review, 19(1): 11-16.
24. Hoenig, J. M., & Heisey, D. M. 2001. The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. The American Statistician, 55(1): 19-24.
25. Iacobucci, D. 2005. From the editor. Journal of Consumer Research, 32(1): 1-6.
26. JARS. 2008. Reporting standards for research in psychology. American Psychologist, 63(9): 839-851.
27. JEP. 2003. Instructions to authors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1): 201.
28. Luk, C. L., Yau, O., Sin, L., Tse, A., Chow, R., & Lee, J. 2008. The effects of social capital and organizational innovativeness in different institutional contexts. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4): 589-612.
29. Mazen, A. M., Graf, L. A., Kellogg, L. A., & Hemmasi, M. 1987. Statistical power in contemporary management research. Academy of Management Journal, 30(2): 369-380.
30. Parboteeah, K. P., Hoegl, M., & Cullen, J. B. 2008. Managers' gender role attitudes: A country institutional profile approach. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5): 795-813.
31. Qian, G. M., Li, L., Li, J., & Qian, Z. M. 2008. Regional diversification and firm performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(2): 197-214.
32. Rynes, S. L. 2007. Editors afterword: Let's create a tipping point - What academics and practitioners can do, alone and together. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5): 1046-1054.
33. Scherbaum, C. A., & Ferreter, J. M. 2009. Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research Methods, 12(2): 347-367.
34. Shaver, J. M. 2006. Interpreting empirical findings. Journal of International Business Studies, 37(4): 451-452.
35. Shaver, J. M. 2008. Organizational significance. Strategic Organization, 6(2): 185-193.
36. Van de Vliert, E. V. 2003. Thermoclimate, culture, and poverty as country-level roots of workers' wages. Journal of International Business Studies, 34(1): 40-52.
37. Zedeck, S. 2003. Editorial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1): 3-5.