What effect sizes should researchers report for multiple regression under non-normal data?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Instead of relying on null-hypothesis significance testing (NHST), researchers are consistently advised to use effect sizes (ESs) and confidence intervals (CIs) to convey research findings. However, typical ES measures for most linear models (e.g., multiple regression) assume data normality, a condition that is often violated in behavioral research. This may lead to inaccurate interpretation of ES. In multiple regression models, Cohen’s f2, R2 and Radj2 are employed by researchers, but no study has systematically evaluated their robustness in practice. Thus, this Monte Carlo simulation study evaluates the robustness of f2, R2 and Radj2 and the associated CIs based on manipulated levels of sample sizes, magnitudes of ESs, numbers of predictors, and data violations (i.e., heavy-tailed, skewed, contaminated, lognormal, and heteroscedastic distributions of errors). This study offers guidelines regarding how robust these ESs are so that researchers can report the most appropriate ES in their research studies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it