Encyclopedia of Social Network Analysis and Mining

2018 Edition
| Editors: Reda Alhajj, Jon Rokne

Effect Size as a Measure of Difference Between Two Populations

  • Rajarshi Dey
  • Madhuri S. Mulekar
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7131-2_110195



Cliff’s δ

Probability that a unit picked at random from one group will have a higher response than a unit picked at random from another group, for groups typically identified as treatment and control. Also known as the probability of superiority or the precedence probability.

Cohen’s d

Standardized difference in two independent sample means, standardized using average variance, used as a measure effect size.

Cohen’s h

Arcsine-transformed difference in two proportions that are typically used as a measure of distance between two groups.

Cramér’s V

Standardized χ2-statistic.

Effect size

Difference in outcome between two (or more) groups.

Glass’ Δ

Standardized difference in two independent sample means typically used as a measure effect size when the groups are classified as treatment and control.

Hodges’ g

Standardized difference in two independent sample means, standardized using a pooled (i.e., weighted) variance, used as a measure effect size.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Bartolucci AA, Tendera M, Howard G (2011) Meta-analysis of multiple primary prevention trials of cardiovascular events using aspirin. Am J Cardiol 107(12):1976–1801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bravais A (1846) Analyse mathamatique sur les probabilities des erreurs de situation d’un point. Mem par Divers Savans 9:255–332Google Scholar
  3. Chase JM, Knight TM (2013) Scale-dependent effect sizes of ecological drivers on biodiversity: why standardized sampling is not enough. Ecol Lett 16:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen H, Cohen P, Chen S (2010) How big is a big odds ratio: interpreting the magnitude of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Commun Stat-Simul Comput 39(4):860–864.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03610911003650383MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Cliff N (1996). Ordinal methods for behavioral data analysis. Routledge, Hove, UKGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen J (1962) The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: a review. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 65:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen J (1969) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen J (1977) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, Revised edn. Academic, New York
  10. Cowles M (1989) Statistics in psychology: an historical perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum, HillsdalezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Cramér H (1946) The two-dimensional case, Chapter 21. In: Mathematical methods of statistics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p 282. ISBN 0-691-08004-6Google Scholar
  12. Dey R (2011) Inference for the K-sample problem based on precedence probabilities. Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University: ManhattanGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellis P (2010) The essential guide to effect sizes: statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 9780521194235Google Scholar
  14. Fritz CO, Morris PE (2012) Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. J Exp Psychol Gen 141(1):2–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galton F (1888) Co-relations and their measurement. Proc R Soc Lond 45:135–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glass G (1976) Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educ Res 5(10):3–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hays WL (1963) Statistics for psychologists. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Hedges LV (1981) Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. J Educ Stat 6(2):106–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huberty CJ (2002) A history of effect size indices. Educ Psychol Meas 62(2):227–240MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ivarsson A, Andersen MB, Johnson U, Linwall M (2013) To adjust or not adjust: nonparametric effect sizes, confidence intervals and real-world meaning. Psychol Sport Exerc 14:97–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pearson K (1900) On the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling. Phil Mag Ser 5 50(302):157–175.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14786440009463897CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Pepe MS (2003) The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction. Oxford University Press, New York. ISBN 0-19-856582-8Google Scholar
  23. Rice ME, Harris GT (2005) Comparing effect sizes in follow-up studies: ROC area, Cohen’s d, and r. Law Hum Behav 29(5):615–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL, Rubin DB (1999) Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: a correlational approach. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ruscio J, Mullen T (2012) Confidence intervals for the probability of superiority effect size measure and the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve. Multivar Behav Res 47(2):201–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stigler SM (1986) The history of statistics. Belknap, Cambridge, MAzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Sullivan GM, Feinn R (2012) Using effect size – or why the p value is not enough. J Grad Med Educ 4(3):279–282.  https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Teasdale N, Bard C, La Rue J, Fleury M (1993) On the cognitive penetrability of posture control. Exp Aging Res 19:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsUniversity of South AlabamaMobileUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Suheil Khoury
    • 1
  1. 1.American University of SharjahSharjahUnited Arab Emirates