Correlational effect size benchmarks.

Abstract

Effect size information is essential for the scientific enterprise and plays an increasingly central role in the scientific process. We extracted 147,328 correlations and developed a hierarchical taxonomy of variables reported in Journal of Applied Psychology and Personnel Psychology from 1980 to 2010 to produce empirical effect size benchmarks at the omnibus level, for 20 common research domains, and for an even finer grained level of generality. Results indicate that the usual interpretation and classification of effect sizes as small, medium, and large bear almost no resemblance to findings in the field, because distributions of effect sizes exhibit tertile partitions at values approximately one-half to one-third those intuited by Cohen (1988). Our results offer information that can be used for research planning and design purposes, such as producing better informed non-nil hypotheses and estimating statistical power and planning sample size accordingly. We also offer information useful for understanding the relative importance of the effect sizes found in a particular study in relationship to others and which research domains have advanced more or less, given that larger effect sizes indicate a better understanding of a phenomenon. Also, our study offers information about research domains for which the investigation of moderating effects may be more fruitful and provide information that is likely to facilitate the implementation of Bayesian analysis. Finally, our study offers information that practitioners can use to evaluate the relative effectiveness of various types of interventions.

Stop Interrupting Me! Examining the Relationship Between Interruptions, Test Performance and Reactions

“…Results showed significantly lower (i.e., less favorable) applicant reactions for those who were interrupted (M = 4.95, SD = .78) as compared to those who were not (M = 4.75, SD = .78, (t(5101) = 8.79, p < .001). The effect size was moderate for this outcome (d = .24; Bosco, et al, 2015). Hypothesis 3 is supported; interruptions have a negative relationship with applicant reactions.…”

Cloud-based Meta-analysis to Bridge Science and Practice: Welcome to metaBUS

“…Note that correlation matrices typically contain each variable analyzed in a given study and, thus, with p variables, there are p(p -1)/2 unique correlations, often a large number. Indeed, early versions of the metaBUS database indicate a mean of 86 correlations per article (Bosco, Aguinis, Singh, Field, & Pierce, 2015).…”

“…To our knowledge, this represents the largest collection of curated research findings-in any scientific field-and the flexibility with which users may query the database is currently unmatched. However, correlational effect sizes beyond the Bosco et al (2015) database are currently undergoing incorporation into a release version with additional functionality, to be available in the near future.…”

“…Such a science map would offer a foundation for empirical recommendations for pruning redundant constructs or, at least, readily indicate a comprehensive suite of related terms and an understanding of the field at various levels of refinement. In a broad attempt to generate a field map of applied psychology content, Bosco et al (2015) described their approach as arranging approximately 5,000 taxonomic nodes (i.e., constructs and variables) nested within categories of increasing specification. For instance, at the broadest level are categories such as attitudes, intentions, and behaviors.…”

“…Expanding the behaviors node reveals categories representing major types of behaviors, such as performance (e.g., role performance, extra-role performance, training performance), counterproductive behaviors (e.g., self-defeating behaviors, deviance), and so on, to the narrowest degree of specificity appearing in academic literature in the field, in some cases down to the specific measure used. The metaBUS platform relies on the Bosco et al (2015) taxonomy, which is currently undergoing a series of validation studies, an effort supported financially by the SHRM Foundation.…”