Do effect size heuristics for standardised beta's exist?
Are there any justifiable method/heuristic for assessing the rough effect size (e.g. small, medium or large) of standardized beta coefficients from multiple regressions and path analysis?
Catholic University of Applied Sciences Munich, Munich, Bavaria, Germany
Christian Young Christian, since I have a similar issue, which "rules of thumb" did you use in the end for the standardised regression coefficients?
I took a look at your paper but I could not find anything for the Betas. It says "We followed conventional rules of thumb for effect sizes [29] and deemed medium effect sizes as: Cohen’s d = .5, zero-order correlation coefficient r = |.3|, and odds ratios = 2 or .5; large effect sizes were defined as Cohen’s d = .8, zero-order correlation coefficient r = |.5|, and odds ratios = 5 or.2. All other statistics were interpreted within the context of the study."
"Cohen’s d is a good example of a standardized effect size measurement. It’s equivalent in many ways to a standardized regression coefficient (labeled beta in some software). Both are standardized measures-they divide the size of the effect by the relevant standard deviations. So instead of being in terms of the original units of X and Y, both Cohen’s d and standardized regression coefficients are in terms of standard deviations."
Thanks for your answers. To clarify, I am conducting a systematic review and am hoping to give a rough approximation of effect size based on multiple types of statistics (r’s, odds ratios, beta’s, b’s, etc.) I have conventions for correlations, t and F tests, and odds ratios. But am struggling to find and effect size convention (small, medium, large) for standardised regression coefficients (beta) as reported using multiple regressions and path analysis. As I understand, beta is the standard deviation change in the DV with one standard deviation change in the change in the IV, holding all other IV’s constant. Is there a justifiable method for assessing the effect size of beta in this context? Thanks.
"Acock (2014) also argues that they can be interpreted similar to correlations: β^∗<0.2β^∗<0.2 is considered a weak, 0.2<β^∗<0.50.2<β^∗<0.5 moderate, and β^∗>0.5β^∗>0.5 strong effect (p.272)"
Daniel P. Moriarity Thanks Daniel! I've also found an article that suggests a formula for conversion from β to r. However, it's not helpful in the case of large β, as some β can be over 1.
Elissa J Hamlat I never really did, though the paper Daniel P. Moriarity has linked to above looks useful and is very similar to rules of thumb that I used in the end.
To help gather more support for these initiatives, please consider sharing this post further (you don’t need a ResearchGate account to see it), and I will continue to update it with other initiatives as I find them. You can also click “Recommend” below to help others in your ResearchGate network see it. And if you know of any other community initiatives that we can share here please let us know via this form: https://forms.gle/e37EHouWXFLyhYE8A
-Ijad Madisch, CEO & Co-Founder of ResearchGate
-----
Update 03/07:
This list outlines country-level initiatives from various academic institutions and research organizations, with a focus on programs and sponsorship for Ukrainian researchers:
The application of multiple regression and path analysis is discussed in regard to the exclusive use of the beta coefficients. Beta is one of the possible ways of controlling for the effects of the remaining predictors, others are part and partial correlation, part and partial covariance. A typology is developed for the difference between total and...
Path analysis was developed almost a century ago by geneticist Sewell Wright as a way to understand the relations among variables that goes beyond their correlations. While this method largely stayed in genetics and closely‐related fields, it eventually found its way into psychology in the later part of the twentieth century. This entry describes t...