Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29805179›Full record

ArticleEducational and psychological measurement2017

Performing Contrast Analysis in Factorial Designs: From NHST to Confidence Intervals and Beyond.

Stefan Wiens, Mats E Nilsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Educational and psychological measurement, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Privacy Concerns in Group Format Lifestyle Interventions for Obesity.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2023
    Article
  7. Neural electrophysiological correlates of detection and identification awareness.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The New Statistics for Neuroscience Majors: Thinking in Effect Sizes.Journal of undergraduate neuroscience education : JUNE : a publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience · 2018
    Article
  20. Varieties of Confidence Intervals.Advances in cognitive psychology · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Stefan WiensDepartment of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Mats E NilssonDepartment of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Because of the continuing debates about statistics, many researchers may feel confused about how to analyze and interpret data. Current guidelines in psychology advocate the use of effect sizes and confidence intervals (CIs). However, researchers may be unsure about how to extract effect sizes from factorial designs. Contrast analysis is helpful because it can be used to test specific questions of central interest in studies with factorial designs. It weighs several means and combines them into one or two sets that can be tested with

Indexed as

analysis of varianceBayesian analysisconfidence intervalcontrast analysisnull hypothesis significance testing

Identifiers

PMID29805179
PMCPMC5952862

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.