Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42056646›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

A tutorial for calculating field-specific effect size distributions.

Bernt D Glaser, Heemin Kang, Kristin Audunsdottir, Alina I Sartorius, Daniel S Quintana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Improving statistical reporting in psychology.Communications psychology · 2025
    Review
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

5 authors.

Bernt D GlaserDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Heemin KangDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Kristin AudunsdottirDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Alina I SartoriusDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Daniel S QuintanaDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. daniel.quintana@psykologi.uio.no.

Funding

Helse Sør-Øst RHF 2022059Norges Forskningsråd 301767Norges Forskningsråd 324783Norges Forskningsråd 336085
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effect sizes are useful for understanding the magnitude of study results and for planning new studies via power analysis. However, despite their wide usage, effect sizes are often misinterpreted. This is mostly due to an over-reliance on general effect size benchmarks that were not intended for broad application across diverse research fields. Inaccurate effect size interpretations can lead to incorrect conclusions about the magnitude of study results and incorrect sample size estimates, thereby increasing the likelihood of false-positive results. This article introduces the ESDist R package, which is designed to calculate empirically derived effect-size benchmarks or a range of reliably detectable empirical effect sizes for a specific research question or field of interest by computing effect size distributions (ESDs). This package can be used on data that can be easily extracted from pre-existing meta-analyses to help researchers more accurately plan new studies or to better understand how an individual study might relate to other studies in their field. ESDist includes a set of features that make it easy to use in a priori power analysis. Moreover, the package includes a feature for estimating effect size benchmarks that account for publication bias and are weighted by effect sizes' variances, which addresses existing limitations of using ESDs for study planning or interpretation.

Indexed as

Research DesignData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansSample SizeSoftwareEffect sizeEffect size distributionPower analysisRStudy design

Identifiers

PMID42056646
PMCPMC13128698

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.