Historical trends in reporting effect sizes in clinical neuropsychology journals: A call to venture beyond the results section

Abstract

Objective: For decades, quantitative psychologists have recommended that authors report effect sizes to convey the magnitude and potential clinical relevance of statistical associations. However, fewer than one-third of neuropsychology articles published in the early 2000s reported effect sizes. This study re-examines the frequency and extent of effect size reporting in neuropsychology journal articles by manuscript section and over time. Methods: A sample of 326 empirical articles were drawn from 36 randomly selected issues of six neuropsychology journals at 5-year intervals between 1995 and 2020. Four raters used a novel, reliable coding system to quantify the extent to which effect sizes were included in the major sections of all 326 articles. Results: Findings showed medium-to-large increases in effect size reporting in the Methods and Results sections of neuropsychology journal articles that plateaued in recent years; however, there were only very small and nonsignificant changes in effect size reporting in the Abstract, Introduction, and Discussion sections. Conclusions: Authors in neuropsychology journals have markedly improved their effect size reporting in the core Methods and Results sections, but are still unlikely to consider these valuable metrics when motivating their study hypotheses and interpreting the conceptual and clinical implications of their findings. Recommendations are provided to encourage more widespread integration of effect sizes in neuropsychological research.

Cognitive Intra-individual Variability in the Laboratory Is Associated With Greater Executive Dysfunction in the Daily Lives of Older Adults With HIV

“…We generated and interpreted effect sizes (Woods et al, 2023) according to recent recommendations for psychological research (Funder and Ozer, 2019), which consider values ≤0.05 to be very small, 0.06-0.10 small, 0.11-0.20 medium, 0.21-0.30 large, and ≥0.4 very large. Methodologists generally recommend three possible ways of considering covariates in cross-sectional studies such as ours (Field-Fote, 2019):…”

“…We generated and interpreted effect sizes (Woods et al, 2023) according to recent recommendations for psychological research (Funder and Ozer, 2019), which consider values ≤0.05 to be very small, 0.06–0.10 small, 0.11–0.20 medium, 0.21–0.30 large, and ≥0.4 very large. Methodologists generally recommend three possible ways of considering covariates in cross-sectional studies such as ours (Field-Fote, 2019): a priori approach , whereby covariates are chosen in advance, as determined by prior theory and evidence; standard covariate approach , whereby covariates are included solely on their demonstrated relationship with the dependent variable/criterion; and confound approach , whereby only variables that relate to both the independent variable/predictor and the dependent variable/criterion are included. …”