As a domain expert in statistical analysis and research methodology, I often encounter discussions about effect sizes, which are crucial for interpreting the practical significance of study findings beyond their statistical significance. When we talk about a "large effect size," we are referring to a measure that indicates the magnitude of the difference or strength of the relationship between variables in a study.

Effect sizes are particularly important in fields where statistical significance can be achieved with large sample sizes, even when the differences are not practically meaningful. They help researchers and practitioners understand the real-world impact of their findings.

One of the most common ways to measure effect sizes is through Cohen's d, a standardized measure of the difference between two means. Cohen proposed benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes, suggesting that:

- A value of d=0.2 can be considered a 'small' effect size. This means that for every standard deviation of variation in one group, there is a 0.2 standard deviation difference in the other group.
- A value of d=0.5 represents a 'medium' effect size, which is a more noticeable difference between groups.
- A value of d=0.8 is considered a 'large' effect size, indicating a substantial difference between the groups being compared.

The concept of a large effect size is not just about the statistical significance but about the practical significance as well. In other words, a large effect size suggests that the findings are not only statistically unlikely to have occurred by chance but also that they are large enough to be meaningful in a real-world context.

For instance, in educational research, a large effect size might mean that a new teaching method has a substantial impact on student learning. In clinical trials, a large effect size could indicate that a new drug is significantly more effective than a placebo or existing treatment.

It's important to note that what constitutes a "large" effect size can vary by field and context. Some disciplines might consider an effect size of 0.5 to be large if the typical effect sizes in that field are much smaller. Additionally, the choice of what constitutes a small, medium, or large effect size can depend on the costs and benefits associated with the outcome variable being studied.

When interpreting effect sizes, it's also crucial to consider the confidence intervals around the estimate. A confidence interval provides a range within which the true effect size is likely to fall. A narrow confidence interval around a large effect size estimate suggests that the result is more precise and reliable.

In summary, a large effect size, often operationalized as d=0.8 according to Cohen's criteria, is a significant measure that goes beyond statistical significance to reflect a meaningful and substantial impact in the context of the research question. It is a key concept in determining the importance and applicability of research findings to real-world scenarios.

read more >>

Cohen suggested that d=0.2 be considered a 'small' effect size, 0.5 represents a 'medium' effect size and 0.8 a 'large' effect size. This means that if two groups' means don't differ by 0.2 standard deviations or more, the difference is trivial, even if it is statistically signficant.read more >>