↓ Skip to main content

Computing Multivariate Effect Sizes and Their Sampling Covariance Matrices With Structural Equation Modeling: Theory, Examples, and Computer Simulations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Computing Multivariate Effect Sizes and Their Sampling Covariance Matrices With Structural Equation Modeling: Theory, Examples, and Computer Simulations
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01387
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mike W.-L. Cheung

Abstract

In the social and behavioral sciences, it is recommended that effect sizes and their sampling variances be reported. Formulas for common effect sizes such as standardized and raw mean differences, correlation coefficients, and odds ratios are well known and have been well studied. However, the statistical properties of multivariate effect sizes have received less attention in the literature. This study shows how structural equation modeling (SEM) can be used to compute multivariate effect sizes and their sampling covariance matrices. We focus on the standardized mean difference (multiple-treatment and multiple-endpoint studies) with or without the assumption of the homogeneity of variances (or covariance matrices) in this study. Empirical examples were used to illustrate the procedures in R. Two computer simulation studies were used to evaluate the empirical performance of the SEM approach. The findings suggest that in multiple-treatment and multiple-endpoint studies, when the assumption of the homogeneity of variances (or covariance matrices) is questionable, it is preferable not to impose this assumption when estimating the effect sizes. Implications and further directions are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Master 4 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 10 24%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 11 27%
Social Sciences 5 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 14 34%
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 19 August 2018.
All research outputs
#6,085,183
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,655
of 30,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,434
of 333,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#282
of 731 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 333,238 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 731 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 60% of its contemporaries.