Abstract
Effect size estimates are altered by many factors, including, and perhaps most importantly, the shapes of compared distributions. There have been many long time advocates of the necessity of graphing raw data to truly understand analysis. Though they were and remain correct, there is little evidence in the published literature in psychology that their recommendations have been followed. This paper argues their case, but with the advantage of the recent emphasis on effect sizes promoted by, amongst others, the American Psychological Association publication guide. Unlike Null Hypothesis Statistical Testing (NHST), effect size estimates are not robust to distributional deviations from normality. As a consequence of effect size sensitivity to distributional distortions from normality, it is all the more important to understand the qualities of the distributions from which estimates are derived. In this paper, we consider and simulate cases where graphical analyses reveal distortion in effect size estimates, and in doing so highlight the value of graphing data to interpret effect size estimates.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Wainer, H., Velleman, P.F.: Statistical graphics: Mapping the pathways of science. Annual Review of Psychology 52, 305–335 (2001)
Cohen, J.: The Earth is round (<.05}. American Psychologist 49(12), 997–1003 (1994)
Tukey, J.W.: The Future of Data Analysis. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 33, 1–67 (1962)
Cumming, G., Finch, S.: Inference by eye: Confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. American Psychologist 60(2), 170–180 (2005)
Box, G.E.P.: Non-normality and tests on variances. Biometrika 40(3/4), 318–335 (1953)
Wilkinson, L., Task Force on Statistical Inference: Statistical Methods in Psychology Journals: Guidelines and Explanations. American Psychologist 54(8), 594–604 (1999)
American Psychological Association: Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, 5th edn., Washington, DC (2001)
American Psychological Association: Publication manual of the American Psychological Association, 6th edn., Washington, DC (2010)
Evans, M., Hastings, N., Peacock, B.: Statistical distributions, 2nd edn. John Wiley and Sons (1993)
Brand, A., Bradley, M.T., Best, L., Stoica, G.: Accuracy of effect size estimates from published psychological research. Perceptual and Motor Skills 106, 645–649 (2008)
Brand, A., Bradley, M.T., Best, L., Stoica, G.: Multiple Trials May Yield Exaggerated Effect Size Estimates. Journal of General Psychology 138(1), 1–11 (2011)
Brand, A., Bradley, M.T., Best, L., Stoica, G.: Accuracy of Effect Size Estimates from Published Psychological Experiments Involving Multiple Trials. Journal of General Psychology 138(4), 281–291 (2011)
Anscombe, F.J.: Graphs in statistical analysis. American Statistician 27, 17–21 (1973)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bradley, M.T., Brand, A., MacNeill, A.L. (2012). Interpreting Effect Size Estimates through Graphic Analysis of Raw Data Distributions. In: Cox, P., Plimmer, B., Rodgers, P. (eds) Diagrammatic Representation and Inference. Diagrams 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 7352. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31223-6_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31223-6_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31222-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-31223-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)