In many real world applications there are no straightforward ways of obtaining standardized effect sizes. However, it is possible to get approximations of most of the effect size indices (\(d\), \(r\), \(\eta^2_p\)…) with the use of test statistics. These conversions are based on the idea that **test statistics are a function of effect size and sample size**. Thus information about samples size (or more often of degrees of freedom) is used to reverse-engineer indices of effect size from test statistics. This idea and these functions also power our *Effect Sizes From Test Statistics**shiny app*.

The measures discussed here are, in one way or another, ** signal to noise ratios**, with the “noise” representing the unaccounted variance in the outcome variable

The indices are:

Percent variance explained (\(\eta^2_p\), \(\omega^2_p\), \(\epsilon^2_p\)).

Measure of association (\(r\)).

Measure of difference (\(d\)).

These measures represent the ratio of \(Signal^2 / (Signal^2 + Noise^2)\), with the “noise” having all other “signals” partial-ed out (be they of other fixed or random effects). The most popular of these indices is \(\eta^2_p\) (Eta; which is equivalent to \(R^2\)).

The conversion of the \(F\)- or \(t\)-statistic is based on Friedman (1982).

Let’s look at an example:

```
library(afex)
data(md_12.1)
<- aov_car(rt ~ angle * noise + Error(id / (angle * noise)),
aov_fit data = md_12.1,
anova_table = list(correction = "none", es = "pes")
) aov_fit
```

```
> Anova Table (Type 3 tests)
>
> Response: rt
> Effect df MSE F pes p.value
> 1 angle 2, 18 3560.00 40.72 *** .819 <.001
> 2 noise 1, 9 8460.00 33.77 *** .790 <.001
> 3 angle:noise 2, 18 1160.00 45.31 *** .834 <.001
> ---
> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '+' 0.1 ' ' 1
```

Let’s compare the \(\eta^2_p\) (the `pes`

column) obtained here with ones recovered from `F_to_eta2()`

:

```
library(effectsize)
F_to_eta2(
f = c(40.72, 33.77, 45.31),
df = c(2, 1, 2),
df_error = c(18, 9, 18)
)
```

```
> Eta2 (partial) | 90% CI
> -----------------------------
> 0.82 | [0.66, 0.89]
> 0.79 | [0.49, 0.89]
> 0.83 | [0.69, 0.90]
```

**They are identical!**^{2} (except for the fact that `F_to_eta2()`

also provides confidence intervals^{3} :)

In this case we were able to easily obtain the effect size (thanks to `afex`

!), but in other cases it might not be as easy, and using estimates based on test statistic offers a good approximation.

For example:

```
library(emmeans)
joint_tests(aov_fit, by = "noise")
```

```
> noise = absent:
> model term df1 df2 F.ratio p.value
> angle 2 29 5 0.0144
>
> noise = present:
> model term df1 df2 F.ratio p.value
> angle 2 29 79 <.0001
```

```
F_to_eta2(
f = c(5, 79),
df = 2,
df_error = 29
)
```

```
> Eta2 (partial) | 90% CI
> -----------------------------
> 0.26 | [0.04, 0.44]
> 0.84 | [0.75, 0.89]
```

We can also use `t_to_eta2()`

for contrast analysis:

`pairs(emmeans(aov_fit, ~angle))`

`> NOTE: Results may be misleading due to involvement in interactions`

```
> contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
> X0 - X4 -108 18.9 18 -5.700 0.0001
> X0 - X8 -168 18.9 18 -8.900 <.0001
> X4 - X8 -60 18.9 18 -3.200 0.0137
>
> Results are averaged over the levels of: noise
> P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 3 estimates
```

```
t_to_eta2(
t = c(-5.7, -8.9, -3.2),
df_error = 18
)
```

```
> Eta2 (partial) | 90% CI
> -----------------------------
> 0.64 | [0.39, 0.78]
> 0.81 | [0.66, 0.88]
> 0.36 | [0.09, 0.58]
```

```
library(lmerTest)
<- lmer(Reaction ~ Days + (Days | Subject), sleepstudy)
fit_lmm
anova(fit_lmm)
```

```
> Type III Analysis of Variance Table with Satterthwaite's method
> Sum Sq Mean Sq NumDF DenDF F value Pr(>F)
> Days 30031 30031 1 17 45.9 3.3e-06 ***
> ---
> Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
```

`F_to_eta2(45.8, 1, 17)`

```
> Eta2 (partial) | 90% CI
> -----------------------------
> 0.73 | [0.51, 0.83]
```

We can also use `t_to_eta2()`

for the slope of `Days`

(which in this case gives the same result).

`::model_parameters(fit_lmm, df_method = "satterthwaite") parameters`

```
> Parameter | Coefficient | SE | 95% CI | t(17.00) | p
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> (Intercept) | 251.41 | 6.82 | [238.03, 264.78] | 36.84 | < .001
> Days | 10.47 | 1.55 | [ 7.44, 13.50] | 6.77 | < .001
```

`t_to_eta2(6.77, df_error = 17)`

```
> Eta2 (partial) | 90% CI
> -----------------------------
> 0.73 | [0.51, 0.83]
```

Alongside \(\eta^2_p\) there are also the less biased \(\omega_p^2\) (Omega) and \(\epsilon^2_p\) (Epsilon; sometimes called \(\text{Adj. }\eta^2_p\), which is equivalent to \(R^2_{adj}\); Albers and Lakens (2018), Mordkoff (2019)).

`F_to_eta2(45.8, 1, 17)`

```
> Eta2 (partial) | 90% CI
> -----------------------------
> 0.73 | [0.51, 0.83]
```

`F_to_epsilon2(45.8, 1, 17)`

```
> Epsilon2 (partial) | 90% CI
> ---------------------------------
> 0.71 | [0.48, 0.82]
```

`F_to_omega2(45.8, 1, 17)`

```
> Omega2 (partial) | 90% CI
> -------------------------------
> 0.70 | [0.47, 0.82]
```

Similar to \(\eta^2_p\), \(r\) is a signal to noise ratio, and is in fact equal to \(\sqrt{\eta^2_p}\) (so it’s really a *partial* \(r\)). It is often used instead of \(\eta^2_p\) when discussing the *strength* of association (but I suspect people use it instead of \(\eta^2_p\) because it gives a bigger number, which looks better).

`::model_parameters(fit_lmm, df_method = "satterthwaite") parameters`

```
> Parameter | Coefficient | SE | 95% CI | t(17.00) | p
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> (Intercept) | 251.41 | 6.82 | [238.03, 264.78] | 36.84 | < .001
> Days | 10.47 | 1.55 | [ 7.44, 13.50] | 6.77 | < .001
```

`t_to_r(6.77, df_error = 17)`

```
> r | 95% CI
> -------------------
> 0.85 | [0.67, 0.92]
```

In a fixed-effect linear model, this returns the **partial** correlation. Compare:

```
<- lm(rating ~ complaints + critical, data = attitude)
fit_lm
::model_parameters(fit_lm) parameters
```

```
> Parameter | Coefficient | SE | 95% CI | t(27) | p
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> (Intercept) | 14.25 | 11.17 | [-8.67, 37.18] | 1.28 | 0.213
> complaints | 0.75 | 0.10 | [ 0.55, 0.96] | 7.46 | < .001
> critical | 1.91e-03 | 0.14 | [-0.28, 0.28] | 0.01 | 0.989
```

```
t_to_r(
t = c(7.46, 0.01),
df_error = 27
)
```

```
> r | 95% CI
> ------------------------
> 0.82 | [ 0.67, 0.89]
> 1.92e-03 | [-0.35, 0.35]
```

to:

`::correlation(attitude[, c(1, 2, 6)], partial = TRUE)[1:2, c(2, 3, 7, 8)] correlation`

```
> Parameter2 | r | t(28)
> -----------------------------
> complaints | 0.82 | 7.60
> critical | 2.70e-03 | 0.01
```

This measure is also sometimes used in contrast analysis, where it is called the point bi-serial correlation - \(r_{pb}\) (Cohen and others 1965; Rosnow, Rosenthal, and Rubin 2000):

`pairs(emmeans(aov_fit, ~angle))`

`> NOTE: Results may be misleading due to involvement in interactions`

```
> contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
> X0 - X4 -108 18.9 18 -5.700 0.0001
> X0 - X8 -168 18.9 18 -8.900 <.0001
> X4 - X8 -60 18.9 18 -3.200 0.0137
>
> Results are averaged over the levels of: noise
> P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 3 estimates
```

```
t_to_r(
t = c(-5.7, -8.9, -3.2),
df_error = 18
)
```

```
> r | 95% CI
> ----------------------
> -0.80 | [-0.89, -0.57]
> -0.90 | [-0.95, -0.78]
> -0.60 | [-0.79, -0.22]
```

These indices represent \(Signal/Noise\) with the “signal” representing the difference between two means. This is akin to Cohen’s \(d\), and is a close approximation when comparing two groups of equal size (Wolf 1986; Rosnow, Rosenthal, and Rubin 2000).

These can be useful in contrast analyses.

```
<- lm(breaks ~ tension, data = warpbreaks)
m
<- emmeans(m, ~tension)
em_tension pairs(em_tension)
```

```
> contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
> L - M 10.0 4 51 2.500 0.0400
> L - H 14.7 4 51 3.700 <.0001
> M - H 4.7 4 51 1.200 0.4600
>
> P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 3 estimates
```

```
t_to_d(
t = c(2.53, 3.72, 1.20),
df_error = 51
)
```

```
> d | 95% CI
> --------------------
> 0.71 | [ 0.14, 1.27]
> 1.04 | [ 0.45, 1.62]
> 0.34 | [-0.22, 0.89]
```

However, these are merely approximations of a *true* Cohen’s *d*. It is advised to directly estimate Cohen’s *d*, whenever possible. For example, here with `emmeans::eff_size()`

:

`eff_size(em_tension, sigma = sigma(m), edf = df.residual(m))`

```
> contrast effect.size SE df lower.CL upper.CL
> L - M 0.84 0.34 51 0.15 1.53
> L - H 1.24 0.36 51 0.53 1.95
> M - H 0.40 0.34 51 -0.28 1.07
>
> sigma used for effect sizes: 11.88
> Confidence level used: 0.95
```

`pairs(emmeans(aov_fit, ~angle))`

`> NOTE: Results may be misleading due to involvement in interactions`

```
> contrast estimate SE df t.ratio p.value
> X0 - X4 -108 18.9 18 -5.700 0.0001
> X0 - X8 -168 18.9 18 -8.900 <.0001
> X4 - X8 -60 18.9 18 -3.200 0.0137
>
> Results are averaged over the levels of: noise
> P value adjustment: tukey method for comparing a family of 3 estimates
```

```
t_to_d(
t = c(-5.7, -5.9, -3.2),
df_error = 18,
paired = TRUE
)
```

```
> d | 95% CI
> ----------------------
> -1.34 | [-1.97, -0.70]
> -1.39 | [-2.03, -0.74]
> -0.75 | [-1.27, -0.22]
```

(Note set `paired = TRUE`

to not over estimate the size of the effect; Rosenthal (1991); Rosnow, Rosenthal, and Rubin (2000))

Albers, Casper, and Daniël Lakens. 2018. “When Power Analyses Based on Pilot Data Are Biased: Inaccurate Effect Size Estimators and Follow-up Bias.” *Journal of Experimental Social Psychology* 74: 187–95.

Cohen, Jacob, and others. 1965. “Some Statistical Issues in Psychological Research.” *Handbook of Clinical Psychology*, 95–121.

Friedman, Herbert. 1982. “Simplified Determinations of Statistical Power, Magnitude of Effect and Research Sample Sizes.” *Educational and Psychological Measurement* 42 (2): 521–26.

Mordkoff, J Toby. 2019. “A Simple Method for Removing Bias from a Popular Measure of Standardized Effect Size: Adjusted Partial Eta Squared.” *Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science* 2 (3): 228–32.

Rosenthal, Robert. 1991. “Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Sciences.” *Newbury Park, CA: Sage* 10: 9781412984997.

Rosnow, Ralph L, Robert Rosenthal, and Donald B Rubin. 2000. “Contrasts and Correlations in Effect-Size Estimation.” *Psychological Science* 11 (6): 446–53.

Wolf, Fredric M. 1986. *Meta-Analysis: Quantitative Methods for Research Synthesis*. Vol. 59. Sage.

Note that for generalized linear models (Poisson, Logistic…), where the outcome is never on an arbitrary scale, estimates themselves

**are**indices of effect size! Thus this vignette is relevant only to general linear models.↩︎Note that these are

*partial*percent variance explained, and so their sum can be larger than 1.↩︎Confidence intervals for all indices are estimated using the non-centrality parameter method; These methods search for a the best non-central parameter of the non-central \(F\)/\(t\) distribution for the desired tail-probabilities, and then convert these ncps to the corresponding effect sizes.↩︎