What effect sizes should researchers report for multiple regression under non-normal data?
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.
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 | 0.429 | 0.852 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".