↓ Skip to main content

Standardized Effect Sizes for Moderated Conditional Fixed Effects with Continuous Moderator Variables

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Standardized Effect Sizes for Moderated Conditional Fixed Effects with Continuous Moderator Variables
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00562
Pubmed ID
Authors

Todd E. Bodner

Abstract

Wilkinson and Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999) recommended that researchers include information on the practical magnitude of effects (e.g., using standardized effect sizes) to distinguish between the statistical and practical significance of research results. To date, however, researchers have not widely incorporated this recommendation into the interpretation and communication of the conditional effects and differences in conditional effects underlying statistical interactions involving a continuous moderator variable where at least one of the involved variables has an arbitrary metric. This article presents a descriptive approach to investigate two-way statistical interactions involving continuous moderator variables where the conditional effects underlying these interactions are expressed in standardized effect size metrics (i.e., standardized mean differences and semi-partial correlations). This approach permits researchers to evaluate and communicate the practical magnitude of particular conditional effects and differences in conditional effects using conventional and proposed guidelines, respectively, for the standardized effect size and therefore provides the researcher important supplementary information lacking under current approaches. The utility of this approach is demonstrated with two real data examples and important assumptions underlying the standardization process are highlighted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 29%
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Professor 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 17 38%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 13%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 16 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2023.
All research outputs
#7,161,681
of 25,312,451 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,254
of 34,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,284
of 316,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#251
of 579 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,312,451 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 579 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.