Hi
I found the Rosenthal reference that addresses the following
point:
On 13 Sep 2001, Herman Rubin wrote:
> The effect size is NOT small, or it would not save more
> than a very small number of lives. If it were small,
> considering the dangers of aspirin, it would not be used
> for this purpose.
At http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/B165665.html, one finds:
"Rosenthal (1990) showed that although aspirin cut the risk of a
heart attack approximately in half, it explained only .0011 of
the variance (.11%). Similarly, Abelson (1985) found that batting
average accounted for a trivial proportion of the variance in
baseball game outcomes. Therefore, measures of proportion of
variance explained do not always communicate the importance of an
effect accurately."
The reference for Rosenthal is:
Rosenthal, R. (1990). How are we doing in soft psychology?
American Psychologist, 45, 775-777.
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
