Sentences with phrase «effect size of»

Mean effect size of 0.25 for the 36 studies was statistically significant and represents improvements in problem behaviours that is of practical significance

Furthermore, for the effect size of PSI Health, the older the child, the healthier the parents felt.

For the effect size of the mother - father difference on the PSS: NICU Total scale, the higher the gestational age of the infant, the smaller the difference in parental stress between mothers and fathers.

For example, the results of a meta - analysis by Asscher et al. [4] showed that the effect size of psychopathy on delinquent behavior was larger in adolescent female samples than in adolescent male samples.

Post-hoc analysis indicated that only the HAPA - enhanced group exhibited a significant main effect of time, with a medium effect size of significant increase in life satisfaction over time, F1.45, 150.79 = 9.97, partial eta square = 0.09, P <.001.

With a sample size of 128, a power of 0.8, and a two - sided alpha level of 0.05, it is possible to detect an effect size of 0.50 (Cohen's d).

On the other hand, in terms of the effect size of PSI Acceptability, there was less agreement between the characteristics of older children and the parents» expectations for the child.

One meta - analysis reported the effect size of peer problems relative to typically developing youth as d =.72 for children with ADHD and no comorbidities to d = 1.25 for children with ADHD and comorbid conduct problems [8], which are considered to be medium to large effects [9].

Clear - cut experimental support for genetic differential susceptibility emerged: the combined effect size of the interventions for the susceptible genotypes amounted to r =.33 (95 % confidence interval = 0.23, 0.42; p <.01) versus a nonsignificant r =.08 (95 % confidence interval = − 0.02, 0.17; p =.12) for the hypothesized nonsusceptible genotypes.

Confirmatory factor analyses were employed to test measurement invariance between these two populations, Cronbach's alphas were calculated to determine the reliabilities of the scales, and partial eta - square tests calculated the effect size of the differences between socially anxious and healthy adolescents and between the adolescent boys and girls.

The overall effect size of Incredible Years on children's conduct problems was d = − 0.34, similar to the effect size from a recent meta - analysis on Incredible Years (e.g., Menting et al. 2013).

The primary outcome for the trial is the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) at 2.5 years: a sample size of 462 will have 90 % power to detect an effect size of 0.35, allowing for 25 % loss to follow - up in this intention - to - treat analysis.12

We found power of 0.80 to detect an effect size of f = 0.26 (corresponding to d = 0.52), a medium effect.

In order to analyze the magnitude or effect size of these differences, we considered the η2 index.

Intervention studies for bereaved individuals often recruited participants without regard to symptom status and used supportive interventions.46, 47 A recent meta - analysis of bereavement support interventions showed an effect size of 0.15.48 However, 2 earlier studies49, 50 examined efficacy of an exposure - based treatment for individuals considered to have pathological grief and showed significant treatment effects on measures of anxiety and depression.

The results of the trim - and - fill analysis suggested that bias was present in the data, and therefore, a «corrected» overall effect was estimated, resulting in an effect size of d = 0.301.

Meta - analysis of 27 studies by Butzlaff and Hooley5 investigating the influence of familial EE on relapse found an impressive effect size of.31.

Based on these assumptions, 80 % power is achieved at 1 year for an effect size of 0.56 SD units for the BPC total score, 0.57 SD units for the BPC internalizing score, 0.58 SD units for the BPC externalizing score, and 0.51 SD units for the TPA score.

Although we found significant indirect effects for the mediating role of social problems through avoidance motivation and directly from self - esteem, the effect size of the effect through avoidance motivation was negligibly small.

In an interesting follow - up to the original study, these researchers went on to estimate the effect size of making the income changes that had occurred permanent in the sample of poor families, and comparing that effect size to those that the Department of Health and Human Services estimates for the early head start program (Taylor, Dearing & McCartney, 2004).

The mean (± SD) score for low inhibitory control was 4.4 ± 0.6 (range: 2.0 — 5.0), and the mean score for high inhibitory control was 5.5 ± 0.4 (range: 5.1 — 6.8); the means differed with an effect size of 2.17.

According to Dee & Jacob (2011), the No Child Left Behind Act generated increases in the average math performance of fourth and eighth graders with an effect size of.23.

A consistent pattern was seen on the total score of this measure (sum of the five subscale scores), with parents (d = 0.43 [effect size of change pre-post treatment], t [17] = 1.80, p =.090) and team members (d = 0.31; t [27] = 2.57, p =.016) suggesting mild to moderate improvements.

The primary outcome measure will be scores on the self - report version of the SDQ, a measure of psychopathology in young people with excellent psychometric properties25 and test — retest reliability.26 One previous pilot study has investigated the effect of cognitive training on psychopathology in at - risk young people using the SDQ.19 According to this study, there was a between - group effect size of 0.36 for the SDQ.

Results indicated that there was no significant difference between groups for therapeutic alliance score (t47 = — 1.02, P =.31, d = 0.29; according to Cohen [37], an effect size of 0.2 to 0.3 represents a small effect, around 0.5 represents a medium effect, and 0.8 or greater represents a large effect).

The effect size of the association was −.28 for married fathers and −.44 for non-married fathers.

The mean effect size of these sets of results appeared to be significantly different (Q b (1) = 4.30, p < 0.05).

While parent training has considerable support, many children and families do not benefit from treatment for ODD or ODD - related problems, with a recent meta - analysis yielding an effect size of 0.42 across all ages of children (Lundahl et al., 2006), and one - third of the young children treated with behavioral parent training not improving (Webster - Stratton & Hammond, 1997).

These differences correspond to an effect size of d = 0.16 and d = 0.15 respectively, which are considered as small effect sizes.

Of note, the effect size of paternal undermining was the largest difference in parental behaviors found between families with children with an anxiety disorder versus control children; effect sizes for parenting behaviors toward the child (control, rejection) were smaller and non-significant.

So, the mean number of included patients in these trials was 52, while in fact a total of 3142 patients would need to be included to find this differential effect size of d = 0.1.

The largest trial comparing CBT with another therapy included 178 patients, and had enough power to detect a differential effect size of only d = 0.42.

We first examined a recent meta - analysis of cognitive behaviour therapy for adult depression.7 This meta - analysis included 46 comparisons between cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and other psychotherapies, with a mean effect size of d = 0.1.

None of the trials in the 3 meta - analyses had enough power to detect effect sizes smaller than d = 0.34, but some came close to the threshold for detecting a clinically relevant effect size of d = 0.24.

Calculation of sample size — We designed the trial to detect a minimum important difference in effect size of 0.6 SD on the primary outcome measure.

The analysis was two - tailed, consisted of an effect size of.

Hence, an effect size of 1.0 or less would reflect substantial overlap between the distribution of scores across the 2 populations.

The results of this study were as follow: First, the effectiveness of the attachment enhancement programs for children showed that the overall weighted mean effect size of.64.

The effect size of the full model was medium at T1, large at T2 and small in the longitudinal analysis.

An effect size of 0.2 is small; 0.5, moderate; and 0.8, large.44

Short - term psychodynamic psychotherapy yielded an effect size of 0.90 after therapy and of 0.95 at follow - up.

Early research suggested that EFT was superior to behavioral marital therapy [20], and a more recent meta - analysis [21] concluded that 70 — 73 % of couples who undergo EFT are no longer relationally distressed at the end of therapy — at an average effect size of d = 1.3.

For the harsh discipline subscale, the adjusted mean difference of − 1.83 (95 % confidence interval − 3.12 to − 0.55; P = 0.005) corresponds to an effect size of − 0.22 (95 % confidence interval − 0.38 to − 0.07).

Compared to the usual 0.5 standard deviation effect size obtained in outcome research studies on couples therapy with heterosexual couples, the study produced an effect size of 1.2 standard deviations, and the results were obtained in approximately half the number of sessions that is typical for heterosexual couples.

A Hedge g effect size estimate was used in the power analysis because it includes a correction for sample size and is therefore more appropriate to use with small samples.26 The interpretation of g is similar to the interpretation of the Cohen d: 0.80 or greater is considered large, 0.50 to 0.79 is considered medium, and 0.20 to 0.49 is considered small.27 A minimum effect size of g = 1.0 was expected based on prior uncontrolled studies of CBCT and the broader psychotherapy research for PTSD.28 An effect size of g = 1.0 represents an approximately 25 - point improvement in total CAPS scores.

That translates to an effect size of 45 divided by 15, which equals 3.0.

An effect size of 1.0, which would've increased Charly's intelligence just one standard deviation, would've boosted Charly's IQ from 70 to 85.

Assuming the use of a 2 (sites) × 2 (negative affect subtypes) × 3 (treatment groups) design with a repeated - measures analysis of variance, a power of 80 %, and a 5 % 2 - tailed test, a medium effect size of 0.5 for binge eating can be detected with a sample size of 205 (assuming a 15 % attrition rate).

For example, the overall group therapy versus control group effect size of 0.58 indicated that the average person attending a group was better off than 72 % of people who received no group intervention (e.g. remained on a waiting list).

Hardy - Weinberg equilibrium was fulfilled for both DRD2 (χ2 = 1.86, df = 1, p =.173) and DRD4 (χ2 = 2.20, df = 1, p =.138) in the Add Health sample and we had adequate statistical power (80 %) to detect an effect size of.35.