As small effect size differences were found, further studies are needed to investigate the long - term impact of early unhealthy diet.
As a small effect size is expected with a universal sample, the size of the pilot trial is 128 mothers.
These differences correspond to an effect size of d = 0.16 and d = 0.15 respectively, which are considered
as small effect sizes.
Not exact matches
Will certain verification standards have the
effect of pushing up a typical, minimum angel investment
size, even
as the proliferation of accredited crowdfunding platforms is taking angel investing in the opposite direction, i.e.,
smaller investments per investor per deal, and the spreading of an individual angel's investment capital over a broader portfolio?
«But the general feeling is that anything harmful will have a stronger
effect on babies because of their
small size — bad substances won't be
as diluted
as they are in an adult.»
This was a cluster - randomised trial and authors stated they did not make allowance for clustering in the sample
size calculation
as the cluster
effect was expected to be
small.
The
effects of gravity leaking into such dimensions would be visible only over long distances — explaining why gravity on
smaller scales, such
as the
size of the solar system, behaves
as if there are three spatial dimensions.
But Berger and his colleagues argue that these features may simply arise
as a side
effect of evolving a
small size.
Differences in brain
size within a species, such
as humans, are relatively
small, making it difficult to tease out the
effects of brain
size and the
effects of other factors.
And while 100 subjects used to be considered «a huge data set,» she says, with
effect sizes as small as they are in schizophrenia, researchers need to look at thousands to «really get a sense what's going on.»
The CDR potential and possible environmental side
effects are estimated for various COA deployment scenarios, assuming olivine
as the alkalinity source in ice ‐ free coastal waters (about 8.6 % of the global ocean's surface area), with dissolution rates being a function of grain
size, ambient seawater temperature, and pH. Our results indicate that for a large ‐ enough olivine deployment of
small ‐ enough grain
sizes (10 µm), atmospheric CO2 could be reduced by more than 800 GtC by the year 2100.
While these studies suggest beneficial
effects, they both studied healthy young adults (in their early 20s1, 2), had very
small sample
sizes (one study had 10 participants2, the other had 201), and used volunteers
as study participants.1, 2 All of these factors decreases the chances that the results can be generalized to all people who engage in exercise.
If it is clear and has a weak Tyndall
effect, the particle
size is
as small as can be made.
Additionally, based on strength and hypertrophy (i.e. muscle thickness and volume)
effect -
size data, the research suggests that exercises be ordered based on priority of importance
as dictated by the training goal of a programme, irrespective of whether the exercise involves a relatively large or
small muscle group.
An
effect of this
size would be so
small as to be essentially negligible from the standpoint of public policy; a one - point gain is too little to justify the expense of class -
size reduction.
And of this
small amount, most is targeted to policymakers and superintendents, and concerns such matters
as the
effects of class
size reduction, charter school attendance, or a merit - pay program for teachers.
«While a handful of SEL programs have been tested and shown to improve children's SEL skills
as well
as academic, mental health, and behavioral outcomes, the
effect sizes are
smaller than we would expect,» says Jones.
As per the American Statistical Association's (ASA) recently released «Statement on P - Values,» statistical significance «is not equivalent to scientific, human, or economic significance... Any
effect, no matter how tiny, can produce a
small p - value [i.e., «statistical significance»] if the sample
size or measurement precision is high enough» (p. 10); hence, one must always check for practical significance when making claims about statistical significance, like Kane et al. actually do here, but do here in a similar inflated vein.
Given these
small sample
sizes, it takes fairly large preschool
effects for such
effects to be detected
as statistically significant.
I summarise PAST experiences (
as research focuses on what has happened in the past) and the preponderance of evidence shows that reducing class
size DOES INCREASE achievement but the
effect is
small.
This factor is also referred to
as the «
small firm
effect,» or the «
size effect,» where
size is based on a company's market capitalization.
Imperfections: Yorkies tend to develop cataracts in their old age, but their
small size limits the
effects of conditions such
as arthritis.
Milk chocolate features much
smaller quantities of theobromine, such that the same medium -
sized dog would have to consume almost a pound of milk chocolate to get the same
effect as an ounce of dark chocolate.
I can feel thermal radiation, I believe CO2 has a measured IR absorption spectrum, I believe a CO2 molecule is not a bottomless pit of energy that can be filled without ever spilling over, and this predictable spilling over is measured from spectrometers on satellites and the ground, therefore there is a CO2 greenhouse
effect whose net
effect on the climate is of some
small and
as yet imprecisely known
size.
Paper J notes that the anthropogenic
effect on sea level rise in one region of the world (the Pacific Ocean) over one period of time (1993 - 2013) is too
small to detect at a statistically significant level due to factors such
as: a)
small sample
size (only 20 years), b) the
effect of control variables (such
as the IPO), c) limitations of satellite altimetry measurement, the technique being used to measure sea level in paper H. Paper K offers a contrasting account of paper J, noting that part of the Pacific sea level rise is anthropogenic.
As with δ13C, there was no
effect of mussel
size (
small vs large) on the mean δ18O (ANOVA, p = 0.091, Fig 2b).
While several investigators have demonstrated that women who receive EC before they need to use it («advance provision») are more likely to use it if unprotected intercourse occurs, there have been no trials in the United States evaluating the impact of pharmacy access on key reproductive health outcomes.4 - 6 Glasier and Baird demonstrated that Scottish women who had an advance supply of EC on hand were almost twice
as likely to use the medication if needed; however, the sample
size was
small and the difference in pregnancy rates between access groups was not statistically significant, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the
effect of advance provision on unintended pregnancy rates.7
Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen d34 and applying his guidelines of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 as cutoffs for small, medium, and large effect sizes, respect
Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen d34 and applying his guidelines of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8
as cutoffs for
small, medium, and large
effect sizes, respect
effect sizes, respectively.
As was the case with the 36 - month follow - up,
effect sizes were in the range of
small to moderate.
Effect sizes were defined
as small, moderate and large based on Cohen's guidelines (0.2, 0.5 and 0.8 thresholds, respectively).
As can be seen from the
effect sizes in Table I, at T1, anti-smoking practices were associated mostly with the cons of smoking, perceived social norm and perceived behavior, although
effect sizes were
small.
For example,
as expected, the scales for optimism, self - concept, and satisfaction with life correlated strongly positively with each other, and negatively with sadness and worries, whereas the scales of empathy and prosocial behavior exhibited correlations of
small effect size with sadness and worries, and
small to moderate ones with optimism, self - concept, and satisfaction with life.
Small size at birth is associated with a range of adverse health outcomes, 1 including poor cognitive development, 2 an
effect that is largely unconfounded by features of the family environment, such
as socioeconomic status and birth order.
The
size of the CfC impacts on most outcomes was
small, but can be considered positive relative to what was observed in the early phase of the UK Sure Start evaluation.3 The current results are also comparable in
size to those found in the later impact evaluation of the Sure Start programme, in which 3 - year - old children were exposed to mature SSLP throughout their entire lives.4 Reviews of the effectiveness of early childhood interventions have found that most studies reported
effect sizes on parenting and child outcomes that were
small to moderate.14 15 When comparing CfC and SSLP with other interventions, it is important to remember that the evaluations of these interventions measured
effects on an entire population, rather than on programme participants,
as is the case in the evaluation of many other interventions.
First, the
effect sizes are
smaller both in absolute terms and in comparison to
effect sizes reported elsewhere — for example, in the UK, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence reported
effects of 1.7 for waiting list versus trauma focused psychological therapies and 1.18 for other active interventions for PTSD.1 Second, there are problems with the
small number of trials in key areas (for example, TAU / WL n = 5), with the combining of different outcomes from the same study in the meta - analysis and the failure to consider clinical
as opposed to statistical significance.
Effect sizes were interpreted
as providing «no evidence of effectiveness» if SMD < 0.20, «
small» if 0.20 < SMD < 0.40, «moderate» if 0.40 < SMD < 0.75, «large» if > 0.75.
As we note,
effect sizes were in the
small to moderate range.
It should be noted that even
small effect sizes, such
as the link between authoritarian control and delinquency can have substantively important consequences.
The agreement between therapist and patient on tasks (t14 = 1.26, P =.22, d = 0.22) and the bond between therapist and patient were rated higher
as well (t14 = 1.62, P =.12, d = 0.33), although the difference did not reach statistical significance and the
effect sizes were
small.
On average, ROE seems to achieve replicable immediate
effects,
as rated by teachers (mean absolute
effect size [ES] =.25), larger
effects than those reported in the most comprehensive meta - analysis to date regarding similar programs implemented
as smaller - scale models or demonstrations (mean ES =.21) or in routine practice (mean ES =.10)(Wilson et al. 2003; Wilson and Lipsey 2007).
For example, Hampson et al.'s (2001) meta - analysis of interventions found very
small effect sizes (mean = − 0.15) interventions on self - management among adolescents with type 1 diabetes compared with greater
effects (M = 0.37) on psychosocial outcomes, such
as family adjustment.
Note however that the
effect size (parameter estimates interpretable
as r) was
small for both
effects and that no interaction
effects were found to be significant, indicating that child psychopathology measured at pre-assessment was not related to treatment effectiveness.
The distribution of
effect sizes should be shaped
as a funnel if no publication bias is present, since the more numerous studies with
small sample
sizes are expected to show a larger variation in the magnitude of
effect sizes than the less numerous studies with large
effect sizes.
Effect sizes are reported either
as «r equivalent» (Rosenthal and Rubin 2003) for the direct group comparisons (hereafter «r»;
small ≥ 0.10, medium ≥ 0.30, large ≥ 0.50; Cohen 1988) or partial eta - squared (ηp 2) for the ANOVA analyses (
small ≥ 0.01, medium ≥ 0.06, large ≥ 0.14; Cohen 1988).