Standardized Effect Size Measures for Mediation Analysis in Cluster-Randomized Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents 3 standardized effect size measures to use when sharing results of an analysis of mediation of treatment effects for cluster-randomized trials. The authors discuss 3 examples of mediation analysis (upper-level mediation, cross-level mediation, and cross-level mediation with a contextual effect) with demonstration of the calculation and interpretation of the effect size measures using a simulated dataset and an empirical dataset from a cluster-randomized trial of peer tutoring. SAS syntax is provided for parametric percentile bootstrapped confidence intervals of the effect sizes. The use of any of the 3 standardized effect size measures depends on the nature of the inference the researcher wishes to make within a single site, across the broad population, or at the site level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.285 | 0.690 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".