DOI:10.6129/CJP.202009_62(4).0006
中華心理學刊 民109，62 卷，4 期，553-592
Chinese Journal of Psychology 2020, Vol.62, No.4, 553-592
Li-Ting Chen（Counseling and Educational Psychology, University of Nevada, Reno, USA）；丁麒文（國立臺灣大學心理學系暨研究所）；謝承佑（國立臺灣大學心理學系暨研究所）；陳奕凱（國立臺灣大學心理學系暨研究所）；江宇珊（國立臺灣大學心理學系暨研究所）；黃思婧（國立中央大學學習與教學研究所；國立臺灣科技大學數位學習與教育研究所）；楊同榮（國立臺灣大學心理學系暨研究所）；鄭澈（國立臺灣大學心理學系暨研究所）；劉佩艷（國立中央大學學習與教學研究所）；彭昭英（國立臺灣大學心理學系暨研究所）
摘要
雖然效果量在量化實徵研究裡十分重要，但過去尚未有研究探討效果量在臺灣心理學與教育學的應用情況。本研究系統性地回顧了2017 年與2018 年發表在臺灣具高評價的八本心理學與九本教育學期刊，一共268 篇文章，旨在探討四個報告效果量的面向：(1) 效果量報告的比例、(2) 效果量報告的類型、(3) 效果量的解釋，以及(4) 作者如何處理統計顯著性與效果量強度的落差。結果顯示：72% 的文章報告至少一個效果量，超過65% 的效果量是 r 類型（如：Pearson 相關係數或 ）。在報告效果量的文章中，55%解釋了效果量，80%以上對效果量的解釋僅以小、中或大的標籤標註。在同時報告統計顯著性與效果量的文章裡，50% 呈現兩者間有落差的問題，其中僅有35% 對落差提供解釋。就兩學門的比較而言，儘管心理學期刊文章報告效果量的比例顯著地低於教育學，然而教育學文章使用標籤化的方式解釋效果量之比例卻顯著地高於心理學。整體而言，大多數的作者報告了效果量，卻未必對效果量的意涵提供完整的解釋。本文提出五點效果量報告之建議與四個效果量報告的範例，希冀能幫助讀者在研究報告中正確地闡述效果量的意涵，並促進效果量在量化研究之廣泛應用。
關鍵詞：研究報告慣例、效果量、統計推論、實務顯著性、臨床顯著性
Effect Size Reporting Practices in Taiwanese Psychology and Education Journals: Review and Beyond
Li-Ting Chen（Counseling and Educational Psychology, University of Nevada, Reno, USA）；Qi-Wen Ding（Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University）；Cheng-Yu Hsieh（Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University）；Yi-Kai Chen（Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University）；Yu-Shan Chiang（Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University）； Ssu-Ching Huang（Graduate Institute of Learning and Instruction, National Central University, Taiwan；Graduate Institute of Digital Learning and Education, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology）；Tong-Rong Yang（Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University）；Che Cheng（Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University）；Pey-Yan Liou（Graduate Institute of Learning and Instruction, National Central University, Taiwan）；Chao-Ying Joanne Peng（Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University）
Abstract
The importance of reporting effect sizes (ESs) in quantitative empirical studies has been emphasized in the literature. However, no published study to date has shed light on current ES reporting practices in Taiwanese psychology and education journals. To fill this gap, the present study systematically reviewed 268 articles published in eight Taiwanese psychology journals and nine education journals during 2017 and 2018. All of these 17 journals were highly ranked in their respective fields. Four aspects of ES reporting practices were investigated: (A) the ES reporting rate, (B) the ES type, (C) the ES interpretation, and (D) the resolution of discrepancies between the ES magnitude and statistical significance. The results revealed that 72% of articles reported at least one ES, and more than 65% of ESs reported were the r-type, such as Pearson’s r and . Of the studies that reported ESs, 55% also interpreted the ESs. More than 80% of these interpretations were the mere labeling of an ES as small, medium, or large, according to established benchmarks. Approximately 50% of the articles showed a discrepancy between the magnitude of an ES and its corresponding statistical significance, but only 35% of these articles attempted to explain or resolve the discrepancy. When the data for psychology and education articles were analyzed separately, the psychology articles exhibited a lower rate of both ES reporting and ES interpretation by labeling. In sum, the majority of articles reported at least one ES, but few interpreted ES fully or meaningfully. To assist authors with a full and meaningful ES reporting, we offer five suggestions and one exemplary ES reporting in the Extended Abstract. It is hoped that this paper contributes to an increased practice of meaningfully reporting ES(s) in empirical quantitative studies in Taiwan.
Keywords: clinical significance, effect size, practical significance, reporting practice, statistical inference
