ArticleMethodsX2024
Context matters: Interpreting effect sizes in education meaningfully.
Article in MethodsX, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact of peer support groups on the psychological well-being of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Psychological resilience, metacognition, post-traumatic growth, and rumination among undergraduate nursing interns: A cross-sectional study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Assessing group differences through effect size estimations has become standard practice in educational research. However, the interpretation of these effect sizes is often discussed without considering contextual factors such as prior knowledge, motivation, and socio-economic background that influence the learning outcome. In this methods paper, we discuss the significance of considering affective, cognitive, and sociographic factors when interpreting effect sizes. Furthermore, we propose a theoretical framework for two primary types of effect size distribution based on prior knowledge. This framework may enable researchers in the learning sciences to interpret and contextualize their findings beyond testing null hypotheses and reporting abstracted effect sizes.-Contextual factors, including prior knowledge or motivation, should be taken into account when interpreting effect sizes.-In relationship to prior knowledge, effect sizes often follow a normal distribution or an extension thereof following one period of a sine-like wave.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.