CHILD DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVES
What Are Effect Sizes and Why Do We Need Them?
Larry V. Hedges
Northwestern University
ABSTRACT—Effect sizes are quantitative indexes of the
relations between variables found in research studies.
They can provide a broadly understandable summary of
research findings that can be used to compare different
studies or summarize results across studies. Unlike statis-
tical significance (p values), effect sizes represent
strength of relationships without regard to sample size.
Three families of effect sizes are widely used: the stan-
dardized mean difference family, the standardized
regression coefficient family, and the odds ratio family.
KEYWORDS—effect size; p values; statistics; meta-
analysis; statistical significance
Most scientific studies attempt to estimate the relation between
variables of interest. Experimental studies focus on causal
relations between discrete treatment variables and an outcome,
estimated using random assignment of units to treatments.
Nonexperimental studies often focus on relations between
measured (discrete or continuous) variables, often controlling
for the effects of other (confounding) variables.
In either kind of study, statistical methods are usually used to
assess the strength, precision, and statistical reliability of the
relation, information that is usually included when reporting
a study’s results.
WHAT ARE EFFECT SIZES?
Effect sizes are quantitative indexes of relations among varia-
bles. Although the term effect size has been used to refer to
several more specific indexes, the term now generally refers to
any index of relation between variables. Here, we use the term
in that more general sense to refer to any index of relation
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Larry V. Hedges, Department of Statistics, Northwestern
University, 2040 N. Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208; e-mail:
l-hedges@northwestern.edu.
# 2008, Copyright the Author(s)
Journal Compilation # 2008, Society for Research in Child Development
Volume 2, Number 3, Pages 167–171
between variables. In a sense, an effect size describes the
degree to which the null hypothesis of no relation between
variables is false. Although there are many different effect size
indexes, there are reasons to prefer some indexes over others;
thus, some effect sizes are better than others. There are many
different possible effect sizes, including the difference between
treatment and control group means divided by the standard
deviation (Cohen’s d), the correlation coefficient between the
independent variable and the outcome, and the difference in
proportions of individuals experiencing a particular outcome.
WHY DO WE NEED EFFECT SIZES?
We report results in science to communicate the findings to
others who may use the results, including other scientists and
policy makers. Effect sizes are used to communicate the
strength of the relationship between variables found in the
scientific study. Any research study is rooted in many details of
design, measurement devices, and detailed procedures, and
thorough evaluation of these details is necessary to evaluate the
scientific integrity of the study. However, there is also a need to
understand and communicate the central findings of the study in
a way that can be widely understood and compared with the
findings of related studies.
One of the barriers to broad understanding of results in social
science research is that different researchers often use different
instruments to measure outcome constructs (such as different
achievement tests, different adjustment measures, and different
indicators of deviance), which makes it difficult to compare the
results of studies. If Study A finds that the treatment effect of an
intervention is 2.3 scale score points on the Woodcock–Johnson
reading comprehension test, but Study B finds that the treatment
effect is 7.5 points on the Terra Nova reading comprehension
scale, which effect is larger? It is hard to tell.
Effect sizes are intended to communicate a research study’s
findings about strength of relations between variables in
a manner that captures the essential features of results but that
can be broadly understood and compared with findings from
other studies.
168 j Larry V. Hedges
STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE DOES NOT SOLVE THE
PROBLEM OF INTERPRETING AND COMPARING
RESULTS ACROSS STUDIES
Hypothesis testing has become a nearly universal aspect of
scientific procedure. The discrete significance test is often
supplemented by a so-called exact p value. The p value is the
probability of observing data that are as inconsistent with the
null hypothesis as the data actually observed, given that the null
hypothesis is true (i.e., that the true effect size is 0). Because the
p value from every study is interpreted in the same manner,
p values would seem to be broadly understood. Significance tests
and exact significance values have the virtue that they are scale
free; that is, any study of the relation between variables can
yield a p value, regardless of whether the studies measure the
outcome on the same scale. Thus, p values would seem to be
a good candidate for effect size metric. I argue that this is
incorrect.
Further examination of the nature of p values makes it clear
that they are not suitable for comparison of effect sizes. Consider
the p value associated with one research design, the two-group
study with n1 individuals in one group and n2 individuals in
another group, that measures a continuous outcome variable Y.
The analysis of this design would use a two-sample t test to
measure the statistical significance of the treatment effect
(which is just the mean difference). The p value depends on
the test statistic
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  if the studies measure the same outcome construct using
n1 n2 Y 1
Y 2
t5 ;
n1 þ n2 S A caveat is appropriate here. Even measures that would
where Y1 and Y2 are the sample means in the two groups and S is
the pooled within-group standard deviation. Thus, the t statistic
is influenced by the sample sizes n1 and n2. In particular, a study
that had a larger sample size but obtained exactly the same
summary statistics Y1 , Y2 , and S, would have a different t
statistic and therefore a different p value. Thus, although p
values are useful in determining how reliable the mean
difference may be, they do not provide an index of how large
the effect may be.
The Standardized Mean Difference: Cohen’s d
Cohen (1977) introduced the effect size concept as a tool to aid
in statistical power computations. He characterized the situa-
tion as follows:
ðtest statisticÞ 5 ðsample size pieceÞ  ðeffect sizeÞ:
In the situation p
of the t statistic I mentioned
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi above, the sample
size piece is n1 n2 =ðn1 þ n2 Þand the effect size is
ðY1
Y2 Þ=S. This effect size is often called Cohen’s d. Thus,
Cohen’s d is just the difference in means expressed in standard
deviation units. Note that the effect size d does not depend
explicitly on the sample sizes n1 and n2. Moreover, the mean of
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 2, Number 3, Pages 167–171
the sampling distribution of d is (almost exactly) the population
effect size d 5 (l1
l2)/r, which depends only on the
population parameters underlying the sample data.
This effect size is mathematically natural in the context of
statistical power because statistical power depends on popula-
tion structure (population parameters) only through the pop-
ulation effect size d 5 (l1
l2)/r. Thus, this effect size is the
natural representation of ‘‘how false’’ the null hypotheses are in
quantitative terms or, alternatively, the size of the relation
between treatment and outcome.
The effect size d has several other virtues as a way to
characterize treatment effect in the two-group study. First, the
effect size depends only on the underlying population param-
eters, not on sample size, which is particular to the study.
Second, the effect size d does not depend on the scale used to
measure the outcome variable; any linear transformation of the
data would yield exactly the same value of the effect size. This
second point is important because classical measurement
theory would interpret any two measures that are linear trans-
formations of one another to be measures of the same thing.
Thus, if a researcher were to choose from an array of different
measures of the same thing (each with its own scale of
measurement), the effect size computed would not depend on
which measure he or she chose. In statistical terms, the effect
size would be invariant to choice of scale. This scale invariance
is very desirable in a measure of effect size. It means that effect
sizes from different studies can be meaningfully compared even
different measurement scales.
generally be conceded to measure the same construct (e.g., two
different tests of reading comprehension) are probably not
exactly linearly equatable (i.e., they would not have correlation
r 5 1.0). However, many measures that attempt to measure the
same construct come close to being linearly equatable, and this
approximation is widely used in psychometric programs to
equate different tests (Holland & Rubin, 1982). It is frequently
a reasonable modeling assumption that permits an interpreta-
tion of d values from different studies as representing the
treatment effect on a common scale that has a population
standard deviation of unity.
In some circumstances, studies do not measure outcomes that
can be called the same construct in a narrow psychometric
sense. Effect size measures such as d can still be of use in such
cases. However, statisticians often use d as a measure of the
separation between two distributions of values. Thus, d can be
interpreted as an index of separation (or overlap) between
distributions of outcome scores of two groups. This interpreta-
tion of d can be applied even when comparing d values that are
not based on measures of the same construct. In this case, d still
represents a measure of separation of the distributions of scores
from the two groups. This interpretation is appropriate when
considering the question of whether the effect of a treatment on

one construct (say, academic achievement) is bigger or smaller
than its effect on a different construct (say, deviance).
Cohen’s d was appealing to many educational researchers
because it corresponded to the way they often interpreted study
results. Even before effect sizes came into common use, it was
not uncommon for researchers to refer to a treatment effect as
being as large as ‘‘half a standard deviation,’’ clearly in the spirit
of Cohen’s d.
Cohen (1977) noted that not only the t statistic but also many
other test statistics can be written as the product of a sample size
piece that explicitly depends on sample size and design of the
study and an effect size piece that depends only on the
population parameters underlying the study. In fact, virtually
all test statistics can be decomposed in this manner, yielding
effect size indexes that are naturally related to statistical power
and that can also be used to represent study results.
Like d, most of the effect size measures that arise naturally in
conjunction with statistical power are scale invariant, meaning
that they involve explicit or implicit standardization.
Complications
Although Cohen’s d has much to recommend it, in the simple
case of a two-group study based on simple random samples of
individuals, complications can arise that compromise compa-
rability of effect sizes across studies. For example, studies may
differ substantially in the selectivity of their sampling. This
means that the standard deviation refers to a substantially
different population of individuals in different studies, so that
even if two studies measured the outcome in the same scale and
had the same absolute treatment–control mean difference, the
standardized mean differences in these two studies would be
different. For example, Hyde (1981) compared the results of
studies of cognitive gender differences using Cohen’s d. One of
Hyde’s studies was based on a nationally representative sample,
and another was based on subjects from the Terman study of
geniuses, a sample with considerably more restricted cognitive
ability. Although this example is extreme, less extreme differ-
ences in the restrictiveness of samples could hamper compara-
bility of standardized effect sizes such as Cohen’s d to some
degree.
Another consideration that can compromise comparability of
standardized effect sizes such as Cohen’s d is differential
measurement error. Unreliability in the outcome measure
attenuates d (see Hedges, 1981), and if the reliability of outcome
measures varies across studies, there will be differential
attenuation. Fortunately, this effect is substantial only if there
are large differences in the reliability of outcome measures
across studies.
In studies with more complex designs, the notion of stan-
dardized effect sizes becomes more ambiguous. For example, in
two-level designs (such as those that sample schools first and
then children within schools), there are several possible
standard deviations to use. One might use the within-school
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 2, Number 3, Pages 167–171
What Are Effect Sizes? j 169
standard deviation, the total standard deviation, or even the
between-school standard deviation. Each choice of standard
deviation would yield a different effect size measure (see
Hedges, 2007). The choice of which standardized effect size
measure to use in these designs will depend on the purpose of
the comparison and the kind of effect sizes one wishes to
compare.
Families of Effect Sizes
Three families of effect size measures are common in the social
sciences. The standardized mean difference, which I have
already discussed, is a member of a family of related effect
sizes that is designed for representing relations between
dichotomous independent variables and continuous dependent
variables.
The standardized regression coefficient family is designed for
representing the relation between continuous independent
variables and continuous dependent variables. This family
includes the correlation coefficient as a special case: a stan-
dardized regression coefficient when there is only one predictor.
The standardized regression coefficient describes how many
standard deviations of change in the dependent variable are
associated with a change of 1 SD in the independent variable.
Thus, standardized regression coefficients may be suitable
effect sizes for describing the relation between two constructs
even when the independent and dependent variables are not
measured in exactly the same way in all studies. When there is
only a single independent variable and no other covariates, the
standardized regression coefficient is identical to the correla-
tion coefficient. When there are additional independent varia-
bles used as covariates, then the standardized regression
coefficient describes an association between two variables,
controlling for the other covariates.
The odds ratio family is designed to represent the relation
between dichotomous independent variables and dichotomous
dependent variables. This family includes the risk difference,
the risk ratio, and the odds ratio (see, e.g., Cooper & Hedges,
1994). These indexes are all designed to describe a comparison
of the proportions of individuals having one of the two possible
outcomes (such as surviving a disease) in two groups defined by
the values of the independent variable (such as the treatment
and the control group). If we denote the proportion having the
target outcome (e.g., survival) in Group 1 by p1 and the pro-
portion in Group 2 by p2, the risk difference is simply the
difference between these proportions: p1
p2. The risk ratio is
the ratio of these proportions: p1/p2. The odds ratio is the ratio
of the odds of the target outcome, p/(1
p), in the two groups.
Thus, the odds ratio is as follows:
p1 ð1
p1 Þ p1 ð1
p2 Þ
5 :
p2 ð1
p2 Þ p2 ð1
p1 Þ
Although it seems least intuitive, the odds ratio has certain
mathematical advantages, can be computed from many different
170 j Larry V. Hedges
designs, and is probably the most widely used effect size in this
family.
Choosing an Effect Size Index
Researchers should choose an effect size measure that is natural
for the research design they use. It will make both calculation
and interpretation of the effect size easier. The standardized
mean difference and related effect sizes in that family are
natural for studies that examine the relation between a dichot-
omous independent variable (such as treatment vs. control) and
a continuous outcome measure. Effect sizes in the standardized
regression coefficient family (such as the correlation coefficient)
are natural for studies examining the relation between contin-
uous independent and dependent variables. Effect sizes in the
odds ratio family are natural for studies in which both the
independent and the dependent variables are dichotomous.
Effect sizes in each of the different families can be approxi-
mately translated into effect sizes in other metrics, providing
a rough means of comparing effect sizes computed from studies
with somewhat different designs, but these translations are only
approximate (see, e.g., Hedges & Olkin, 1985).
Reporting Effect Sizes
Effect sizes, like all statistics, should be reported with enough
detail about how they were calculated to permit a competent
scientist to replicate that computation. Merely stating that
a Cohen’s d was calculated in a complex design is an ambiguous
statement because there may be several legitimate ways in
which such a d could be computed and these need not lead to the
same answer.
Effect sizes computed from the data in research studies are
statistics and are subject to sampling uncertainties. Effect sizes,
like all such statistics, should always be reported along with
some measure of their sampling uncertainty. The standard error
is an appropriate measure of uncertainty, as is a confidence
interval for the effect size. Methods for computing standard
errors and confidence intervals for effect sizes are beyond the
scope of this article but are available in many sources (e.g.,
Cooper & Hedges, 1994).
Interpretation of Effect Sizes
Statistical calculation is a mathematical process, whereas
interpretation of effect sizes is an act of human judgment. No
statistical theory can make these judgments. Such judgments
will typically be made in some normative context involving the
importance of the relationship and the magnitude of other
relations to which an effect size may be compared. This means
that it is difficult to interpret an effect size as large or small
without implicitly or explicitly comparing it to other effect sizes.
Thus, the interpretation of effect sizes is often comparative and
always depends on the context. There are many comparative
standards that might be used to help in interpretations of effect
sizes, including gaps between relevant groups (Black–White,
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 2, Number 3, Pages 167–171
male–female, etc.), indexes of growth (e.g., 1-year growth), or
collections of related effect sizes (like Lipsey & Wilson’s, 1993,
compendium).
In some cases, interpretation of effect sizes can be aided by
comparing effects with the natural range of variation in
populations, such as the interquartile range. However, it is
important to recognize that natural variation is different at
different levels of a multilevel population. For example, in
considering academic achievement, the variance of the pop-
ulation of school means is much smaller (typically only 20% as
large) than the total variation (Hedges & Hedberg, 2007).
Therefore, a difference that appears large when compared to
the variation of school means may appear small when compared
to the range of the total achievement distribution (see
Konstantopoulos & Hedges, 2008).
Universal (decontextualized) criteria for interpretation of
effect sizes are not helpful. Cohen (1977) reluctantly proposed
one set of criteria but argued that they should be applied only in
situations where there was no other knowledge available to
make a more informed judgment. But it is particularly important
to remember that they were proposed for power analysis, not for
the interpretation of social research. Unfortunately, researchers
have largely ignored Cohen’s cautionary arguments and have
reified his guidelines into the folklore of social research. The
interpretation of effect sizes as large or small depends on the
research context. A very small value of effect size on an outcome
like death may be extremely important, whereas a much larger
numerical value of that same effect size on an outcome like
‘‘discomfort’’ might be judged to be far less consequential. In
addition, the uncertainty associated with the effect size (e.g., the
width of the confidence interval) should influence its interpre-
tation: Effect size estimates with very wide confidence intervals
may be of less practical value than estimates with less un-
certainty. Finally, effect sizes from designs that involve statis-
tical controls (such as covariate analyses) depend on what is
being controlled. Effect sizes from two studies that control for
different covariates may not be comparable.
Interpretation of effect size estimates from data should always
be made in light of their sampling uncertainties. Standard errors
of effect sizes give some sense of how large this uncertainty
might be, but confidence intervals are even more helpful
because they provide a direct statement of the range of values
in which the true effect size might be.
REFERENCES
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). The handbook of research
synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of
effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational
Statistics, 6, 107–128.

Hedges, L. V. (2007). Effect sizes in cluster randomized designs.
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32, 341–370.
Hedges, L. V., & Hedberg, E. C. (2007). Intraclass correlation values
for planning group randomized trials in education. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 60–87.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-
analysis. New York: Academic Press.
Holland, P. W., & Rubin, D. B. (Eds.). (1982). Test equating. New
York: Academic Press.
Child Development Perspectives, Volume 2, Number 3, Pages 167–171
What Are Effect Sizes? j 171
Hyde, J. S. (1981). How large are cognitive gender differences?
A meta-analysis using v2 and d. American Psychologist, 26,
892–901.
Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2008). How large an effect can
we expect from school reforms? Teachers College Record, 110,
1613–1640.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological,
educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-
analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181–1209.