And
none of the effect sizes should be linked to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), but to the tests associated with each study, where the performance implications of a given effect size are much smaller.
Not exact matches
Many
of the positive
effect sizes were modest, but some were considerable and, until now,
none had found any harm.
At a guess, and in anticipation
of an image, I'd say that Wild Orchid is the better
of the three, partly because
of its more modest
size (the Richter is 118 ″ x 118 ″, the Oliski is 102 ″ x 132 ″, mine is 80 x 66 ″), partly because the colour is better, without that tea - stained
effect in the Olitski, but mostly because there is
none of that seeing through veils
effect which causes ambiguous cloudy, watery depth.
None of this requires fractions
of a degree difference to make the point, nor does it matter about how I round numbers, include or exclude stations, and the signal is some 50 times the
size of the proclaimed co2 greenhouse
effect, and I've accounted for a blending
of different stations.
None of this should be taken as endorsing the validity
of «one
size fits all» / random
effects for this data set or the data selection leading to the creation
of this data set.
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.
For curative interventions,
none of the structural elements were significantly related to
effect size.