Article

Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: Measures of effect size for some common research designs

Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-7143, USA.
Psychological Methods (Impact Factor: 4.45). 01/2004; 8(4):434-47. DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.434
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The editorial policies of several prominent educational and psychological journals require that researchers report some measure of effect size along with tests for statistical significance. In analysis of variance contexts, this requirement might be met by using eta squared or omega squared statistics. Current procedures for computing these measures of effect often do not consider the effect that design features of the study have on the size of these statistics. Because research-design features can have a large effect on the estimated proportion of explained variance, the use of partial eta or omega squared can be misleading. The present article provides formulas for computing generalized eta and omega squared statistics, which provide estimates of effect size that are comparable across a variety of research designs.

Full-text

Available from: James Algina, Apr 16, 2015
11 Followers
 · 
1,315 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sleep inertia, sleep homeostatic and circadian processes modulate cognition, including reaction time, memory, mood and alertness. How these processes influence higher-order cognitive functions is not well known. Six participants completed a 73-day-long study that included two 14-day-long 28-h forced desynchrony protocols to examine separate and interacting influences of sleep inertia, sleep homeostasis and circadian phase on higher-order cognitive functions of inhibitory control and selective visual attention. Cognitive performance for most measures was impaired immediately after scheduled awakening and improved during the first ~2-4 h of wakefulness (decreasing sleep inertia); worsened thereafter until scheduled bedtime (increasing sleep homeostasis); and was worst at ~60° and best at ~240° (circadian modulation, with worst and best phases corresponding to ~09:00 and ~21:00 hours, respectively, in individuals with a habitual wake time of 07:00 hours). The relative influences of sleep inertia, sleep homeostasis and circadian phase depended on the specific higher-order cognitive function task examined. Inhibitory control appeared to be modulated most strongly by circadian phase, whereas selective visual attention for a spatial-configuration search task was modulated most strongly by sleep inertia. These findings demonstrate that some higher-order cognitive processes are differentially sensitive to different sleep-wake regulatory processes. Differential modulation of cognitive functions by different sleep-wake regulatory processes has important implications for understanding mechanisms contributing to performance impairments during adverse circadian phases, sleep deprivation and/or upon awakening from sleep. © 2015 European Sleep Research Society.
    Journal of Sleep Research 03/2015; DOI:10.1111/jsr.12291 · 2.95 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background The visual system may process spatial frequency information in a low-to-high, coarse-to-fine sequence. In particular, low and high spatial frequency information may be processed via different pathways during object recognition, with LSF information projected rapidly to frontal areas and HSF processed later in visual ventral areas. In an electroencephalographic study, we examined the time course of information processing for images filtered to contain different ranges of spatial frequencies. Participants viewed either high spatial frequency (HSF), low spatial frequency (LSF), or unfiltered, broadband (BB) images of objects or non-object textures, classifying them as showing either man-made or natural objects, or non-objects. Event-related potentials (ERPs) and evoked and total gamma band activity (eGBA and tGBA) recorded using the electroencephalogram were compared for object and non-object images across the different spatial frequency ranges. Results The visual P1 showed independent modulations by object and spatial frequency, while for the N1 these factors interacted. The P1 showed more positive amplitudes for objects than non-objects, and more positive amplitudes for BB than for HSF images, which in turn evoked more positive amplitudes than LSF images. The peak-to-peak N1 showed that the N1 was much reduced for BB non-objects relative to all other images, while HSF and LSF non-objects still elicited as negative an N1 as objects. In contrast, eGBA was influenced by spatial frequency and not objecthood, while tGBA showed a stronger response to objects than non-objects. Conclusions Different pathways are involved in the processing of low and high spatial frequencies during object recognition, as reflected in interactions between objecthood and spatial frequency in the visual N1 component. Total gamma band seems to be related to a late, probably high-level representational process.
    BMC Neuroscience 02/2015; 16. DOI:10.1186/s12868-015-0144-8 · 2.85 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Much of our knowledge of the world depends on learning associations (for example, face-name), for which the hippocampus (HPC) and prefrontal cortex (PFC) are critical. HPC-PFC interactions have rarely been studied in monkeys, whose cognitive and mnemonic abilities are akin to those of humans. We found functional differences and frequency-specific interactions between HPC and PFC of monkeys learning object pair associations, an animal model of human explicit memory. PFC spiking activity reflected learning in parallel with behavioral performance, whereas HPC neurons reflected feedback about whether trial-and-error guesses were correct or incorrect. Theta-band HPC-PFC synchrony was stronger after errors, was driven primarily by PFC to HPC directional influences and decreased with learning. In contrast, alpha/beta-band synchrony was stronger after correct trials, was driven more by HPC and increased with learning. Rapid object associative learning may occur in PFC, whereas HPC may guide neocortical plasticity by signaling success or failure via oscillatory synchrony in different frequency bands.
    Nature Neuroscience 02/2015; DOI:10.1038/nn.3954 · 14.98 Impact Factor