Sentences with phrase «mean effect size»

Authors reported the overall mean effect size for attendance outcomes.
Results showed that programs generally had low to moderate mean effect sizes.
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.
This was done in CMA by first calculating the individual effect size for each study and then calculating the weighted mean effect size using the corresponding metric for each question.
Although venlafaxine and paroxetine had significantly (p < 0.001) larger weighted mean effect sizes comparing drug to placebo conditions (ds = 0.42 and 0.47, respectively) than fluoxetine (d = 0.22) or nefazodone (0.21), these differences disappeared when baseline severity was controlled.
Mean effect sizes calculated using only randomized controlled trials are considered to have fewer threats to internal validity then mean effect sizes calculated using only quasi-experimental designs.
If at least three analyses were available we calculated mean effect sizes on discrete parenting behaviors (Table 2).
The magnitude of mean effect sizes varied considerably within the parenting dimension behavioral control (Table 2).
Our findings with regard to parental control do, however, not concur with our meta - analytic results on the link between parenting and delinquency, as we found moderate mean effect sizes for several types of parental control, including poor parental supervision (r = 0.23), and psychological control (r = 0.23; Hoeve et al. 2009).
The number of experiments used to calculate mean effect sizes are shown in parentheses.
Low - ability students performed better in heterogeneous as opposed to homogeneous groups (mean effect size = 0.60), medium - ability students performed better in homogeneous groups (mean effect size = 0.51), and high - ability students performed equally well in either type of group (mean effect size = 0.09).
The mean effect size of 0.434 indicated that test scores obtained by the treatment groups were raised from the 50th to the 67th percentile in relation to the control groups.
The mean effect size of student behaviors in experimental and control groups (Durlak and Weissberg 3)
Participants in the control groups of RCTs did not show an improvement at follow up (mean effect size — 0.3, CI — 0.4 to 0.9 for self report measures [3 RCTs] and 0.5, CI — 2.3 to 3.3 for observer rated measures [2 RCTs]-RRB-.
In 12 studies, participants who received active psychotherapy showed improvement at follow up (mean effect size 1.1, 95 % CI 0.9 to 1.3 for self report measures and 1.3, CI 0.8 to 1.8 for observer rated measures).
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.
On CrimeSolutions.gov's Scoring Instrument for practices, internal validity is measured by the number of randomized controlled trials used to calculate the mean effect size.
Again, these mean effect sizes did not differ significantly (Q b (2) = 3.5, p > 0.05).
Very few studies analyzed specific parenting styles (Avenevoli et al. 1999; Hoeve et al. 2007; Simons et al. 2005; Steinberg et al. 1991) and surprisingly only one study included neglectful parenting (Avenevoli et al. 1999); therefore, we were only able to compute a mean effect size for authoritative parenting style (ESr = − 0.19, p < 0.001, k = 4).
The researchers determined that the mean effect size for randomized control trials (RCTs)(g =.57) did not differ significantly from the mean effect size for quasi-experimental designs (QEDs)(g =.43).
RC = reference category, # studies = number of independent studies; # ES = number of effect sizes, Z = difference in mean r with reference category, mean r = mean effect size (r), heterogeneity = within class heterogeneity (Z), Δfit = difference with model without moderators (χ2)
The overall weighted mean effect size was 0.21 which was statistically significant, though not large.
A recent meta - analysis of IY interventions for children between three and nine - years - old shows a mean effect size of d = 0.27 for disruptive behavior across informants [38].
The overall weighted mean effect size was 0.26, which was statistically significant.
a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z