Importancia del tamaño del efecto en el análisis de datos de investigación en psicología

  • Ronald Castillo-Blanco Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos (Perú)
  • Alberto Alegre-Bravo Universidad de Lima (Perú)
Palabras clave: Tamaño del efecto, Investigación, Psicología, Análisis de datos, Inferencia estadística

Resumen

Inicialmente se discute el método tradicional de análisis inferencial en metodología cuantitativa (test de significancia de la hipótesis nula) haciendo ver sus limitaciones e imposibilidad de expresar la significancia práctica de los resultados. Se muestra el tamaño del efecto como una medida del grado en el que se presenta un determinado fenómeno de interés, medida cuyo reporte es solicitado explícitamente por la American Psychological Association (APA) en sus tres últimos manuales de publicación. Finalmente, se revela la ausencia de estudios que den cuenta de la aplicación del tamaño del efecto en el contexto local.

Descargas

La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.

Citas

American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5.a ed.). Washington DC: Autor.

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6.a ed.). Washington, DC: Autor.

Aron, A., Coups, E., y Aron, E. (2013). Statistics for psychology (6.a ed.). Buenos Aires: Pearson Education.

Bakan, D. (1966). The test of significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 66(6), 423-437.

Bordens, K., y Abbott, B. (2011). Research design and methods (8.a ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., y Rothstein, H. (2009).

Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Carver, R. (1978). The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard Educational Review, 48(3), 378-399.

Coe, R., y Merino, C. (2003). Magnitud del efecto: Una guía para investigadores y usuarios. Revista de Psicología [PUCP], 21(1), 146-177.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2.a ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45(12), 1304-1312.

Cohen, J. (1994). The Earth is round (pits statistics recommendations are so controversial. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(5), 749-770.

García, J., Ortega, E., y De la Fuente, L. (2008). Tamaño del efecto en las revistas de Psicología indizadas en Redalyc. Informes Psicológicos, 10(11), 173-188.

García, J., Ortega, E., y De la Fuente, L. (2011). The use of the effect size in JCR spanish journals of Psychology: from theory to fact. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(2), 1050-1055.

Glass, G. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-análysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3-8.

Goodwin, J. (2010). Research in Psychology: Methods and Design (6.a ed.). Toronto: John Wiley and Sons.

Grissom, R., y Kim, J. (2005). Effect sizes for research. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hernández, R., Fernández, C., y Baptista, P. (2010). Metodología de la investigación (5.a ed.). México, D. F.: McGraw-Hill.

Hubbard, R., y Ryan, P. (2000). The historical growth of statistical significance testing in psychology and its future prospects. Educational and Psychological Methods, 60(5), 661-681.

Kelley, K., y Preacher, K. (2012). On effect size. Psychological Methods, 17(2), 137-152.

Keselman, H., Huberty, C., Lix, L., Olejnik, S., Cribbie, R., Donahue, B., … Levin, J. (1998). Statistical practices of educational researchers: An analysis of their Anova, Manova, and Ancova analyses. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 350-386.

Kirk, R. (1996). Practical significance: a concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(5), 746-759.

Kirk, R. (2001). Promoting good statistical practices: some suggestions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61(2), 213-218.

Kirk, R. (2008). Statistics: an introduction (5.a ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomsom Wadsworth.

Kline, R. (2004). Beyond significance testing: reforming data analysis methods in behavioral research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lehmann, E. (2011). Fisher, Neyman, and the creation of classical statistics. New York: Springer.

Meehl, P. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisk: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806-834.

Myers, J., y Well, A. (2003). Research design and statistical analysis (2.a ed.). Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nickerson, R. (2000). Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 241-301.

Pagano, R. (2013). Understanding statistics in the behavioral sciences (10.a ed.). México, D. F.: Cengage Learning.

Rosnow, R., y Rosenthal, R. (1989). Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. American Psychologist, 44(10), 1276-1284.

Rozeboom, W. (1960). The fallacy of the null-hypothesis significance test. Psychological Bulletin, 57, 416-428.

Schmidt, F. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implications for training of researchers. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 115-129.

Schmidt, F., y Hunter, J. (1997). Eight common but false objections to the discontinuation of significance testing in the analysis of research data. En A. Harlow, S. Mulaik, y J. Steiger, What if there were no significance tests? (pp. 37-64). New Jork: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shaughnessy, J., Zechmeister, E., y Zechmeister, J. (2012). Research methods in psychology (9.a ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Snyder, P., y Thompson, B. (1998). Use of tests of statistical significance and other analytic choices in a school psychology journal: review of practices and suggested alternatives. School Psychology Quarterly, 13(4), 335-348.

Sun, S., Pan, W., y Wang, L. (2010). A comprehensive review of effect size reporting and interpreting practices in academic journals in education an psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 989-1004.

Thompson, B. (1999). If statistical significance tests are broken/misused, what practices should supplement or replace them? Theory & Psychology, 9(2), 165-181.

Thompson, B. (1999). Statistical significance tests, effect size reporting and the vain pursuit of pseudo-objetivity. Theory & Psychology, 9(2), 191-196.

Vacha-Haase, T., y Ness, C. (1999). Statistical significance testing as it relates to practice: use within Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 104-105.

Vacha-Hasse, T., y Thompsom, B. (2004). How to estimate and interpret various effect sizes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(4), 473-481.

Wilkinson, L., y TFSI - Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54(8), 594-604.

Publicado
2015-01-19
Cómo citar
Castillo-Blanco, R., & Alegre-Bravo, A. (2015). Importancia del tamaño del efecto en el análisis de datos de investigación en psicología. Persona, (018), 137-148. https://doi.org/10.26439/persona2015.n018.503
Sección
Artículos