Abstract
Research findings that are statistically significant are not always clinically meaningful. Proposed guidelines for interpretation of effect sizes have been shown to underestimate or overestimate observed effect sizes in other fields. The current study extracted 1387 effect sizes from 32 meta-analyses in speech-language pathology and audiology journals, and distributions of effect sizes were investigated. Research in both fields was found to be underpowered, and researchers are encouraged to recruit larger sample sizes.
Learning Objectives:
Describe small, medium, and large effect sizes in speech-language pathology and audiology research.