360004427834 (40)

Why is the effect size of 0.4 seen as a ‘hinge point’?

Should we only focus on influences with high effects sizes and leave out the low ones?

How should research be grouped in meta-analyses?

Is some research just too different to robustly average?

Is it appropriate to rank effect sizes?

Are meta-analyses truly as good as the original research?

Is the use of effects sizes contingent on a normal distribution?

Explain why confidence intervals were not used to help convey the effect size information.

What should I keep in mind when interpreting meta-analyses?

If the effect size of 1.33 for assessment-capable learners, indicates nearly four years of growth in one year, would that mean that a 1st grader would be essentially learning at the grade level of a 5th grader by the end of first grade?