ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Under my umbrella: Rating scales obscure statistical power and effect size heterogeneity.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data from rating scales underlie very specific restrictions: They have a lower limit, an upper limit, and they only consist of a few integers. These characteristics produce particular dependencies between means and standard deviations. A mean that is a non-integer, for example, can never be associated with zero variability, while a mean equal to one of the scale's limits can only be associated with zero variability. The relationship can be described by umbrella plots for which we present a formalization. We use that formalization to explore implications for statistical power and for the relationship between heterogeneity in unstandardized and standardized effect sizes. The analysis illustrates that power is not only affected by the mean difference and sample size, but also by the position of a mean within the respective scale. Further, the umbrella restrictions of rating scales can impede interpretability of meta-analytic heterogeneity. Estimations of relative heterogeneity can diverge between unstandardized and standardized effects, raising questions about which of the two patterns of heterogeneity we would want to explain (for example, through moderators). We reanalyze data from the Many Labs projects to illustrate the issue and finally discuss the implications of our observations as well as ways to utilize these properties of rating scales. To facilitate in-depth exploration and practical application of our formalization, we developed the Shiny Umbrellas app, which is publicly available at https://www.apps.meta-rep.lmu.de/shiny_umbrellas/ .
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.