Posted by
Burleson,Joseph A. on
Jul 18, 2006; 8:24pm
URL: http://spssx-discussion.165.s1.nabble.com/effect-size-eta-squared-vs-partial-eta-squared-tp1069749p1069756.html
Just to clarify:
Cohen's rules of thumb that you list are for mean differences (t-tests,
etc.) translated into r-sq. But his section on correlation uses small
(r = .10, r-sq = .01), medium (r = .30, r-sq = .09), and large (r = .50,
r-sq = .25). He then rectifies these discrepancies on pp. 81-82 (in the
1977 edition, sorry--don't have the '88 at hand, but the chapter on r).
As to your question of partial et-sq and r-sq, I would be curious to any
responses since I always assumed that the interpretation of the effect
size of one would be equivalent to the other.
Joe Burleson
-----Original Message-----
From: SPSSX(r) Discussion [mailto:
[hidden email]] On Behalf Of
Dogan, Enis
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:55 PM
To:
[hidden email]
Subject: effect size: eta-squared vs partial eta-squared
Dear all
SPSS reports partial et-sq as opposed to eta-squared.
I found in the literature the rule thumb for eta-squared as small
(0.01), medium (0.06), and large (0.14) (Cohen, 1988).
Does this apply to partial eta-squared as well?
Also, the definition of eta-squared gives me the idea that it is no
different than what some of us call partial R squared.
Am I right?
There is rumor out there that "researchers erroneously report partial
eta-squared values as representing classical eta-squared values"
http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~haguinis/APMinpress.pdfAny value in this argument?
Thanx
Enis