Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41286207›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2025

Under my umbrella: Rating scales obscure statistical power and effect size heterogeneity.

Jens H Fünderich, Lukas J Beinhauer, Frank Renkewitz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Jens H FünderichUniversity of Erfurt, Nordhäuser Str. 63, 99089, Erfurt, Germany. Jens.Fuenderich@uni-erfurt.de.
Lukas J BeinhauerUniversity of Erfurt, Nordhäuser Str. 63, 99089, Erfurt, Germany.
Frank RenkewitzUniversity of Erfurt, Nordhäuser Str. 63, 99089, Erfurt, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Data Interpretation, StatisticalHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicModels, StatisticalSample SizeErrorHeterogeneityMeta-sciencePowerRating scales

Identifiers

PMID41286207
PMCPMC12644166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.