際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo
Table 1. Size-effects for each study resulting from the comparison between the performances of AD patients and normal subjects(group effects)
Study Effect size information Sig. AD patients vs controls(group effect) size effect r .
1)Salmon et al (1988)
2)Heindel et al (1989)
3)Randolph (1991)
4)Bondi & Kaszniak (1991)
5)Keane & Gabrieli (1991)
6)Burke et al (1994)
7)Gabrieli et al (1994)
8)Grosse et al (1990)
9)Partridge et al (1990)
10)Scott et al (1991)
t-test reported as 4.0, df=24
t-test reported as 4.73, df=26
t-test reported as 3.2, df=28
F reported as significant at 0.03
with df=2,40(i.e.N=44)
F reported as significant at 0.01
with df=1.18(i.e.N=20)
F reported as significant at 0.001
with df=1,36(N=40)
F reported as significant at 0.01
with df=1,28(i.e.N=30)
F reported as significant at 1.0
but not given(N=27)
t-test reported as 0.8, df=28
F reported as significant at 0.01
with df=1,26(i.e.N=28)
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.03
0.01
0.001
0.01
1.0
0.05
0.01
difference
difference
difference
difference
difference
difference
difference
indifference
difference
difference
r = 0.64
r = 0.68
r = 0.51
r = 0.28
r = 0.52
r = 0.48
r = 0.42
r = -0.44
r = 0.14
r = 0.43
11)Russo & Spinler (1994)
12) Huberman & Moscovitch (1994)
13)Fleischman et al (1997)
14) Park et al(1998)
15)Christensen et al (1992)
16)Randolph et al (1995)
17)Downes et al (1996) exp 1
exp 2
F reported as significant at 1.0
but not given(N=24)
F reported as significant at 0.25
with df=3,51(i.e.N=55)
F reported as significant at 0.28
but not given (N=52)
F reported as significant at 1.0
but not given (N=32)
given
F reported as significant at 0.01
under two conditions, N=42
F reported as significant at 0.01
with df=1,12 (N=14)
F reported as significant at 0.05
N=28
1.0
0.25
0.28
1.0
0.193
0.01
0.01
0.05
indifference
indifference
indifference
indifference
indifference
difference
difference
indifference
r = -0.47
r = 0.09
r = 0.08
r = -0.41
r = 0.15
from d=0.30
r = 0.35
r = 0.62
r = 0.31

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (7)

Grupos de Usuarios y Plantillas
Grupos de Usuarios y PlantillasGrupos de Usuarios y Plantillas
Grupos de Usuarios y Plantillas
syed usman ali shah
The Book of Liberty
The Book of LibertyThe Book of Liberty
The Book of Liberty
David Turner
Thanksgiving, An Attitude of Gratitude.
Thanksgiving, An Attitude of Gratitude.Thanksgiving, An Attitude of Gratitude.
Thanksgiving, An Attitude of Gratitude.
David Turner
Wrestling In A Dark World John 15:18-16:4 and Ephesians 6:12-13
Wrestling In A Dark World John 15:18-16:4 and Ephesians 6:12-13Wrestling In A Dark World John 15:18-16:4 and Ephesians 6:12-13
Wrestling In A Dark World John 15:18-16:4 and Ephesians 6:12-13
David Turner
BIOSIMILARS - Regulation and Market Trends
BIOSIMILARS - Regulation and Market Trends    BIOSIMILARS - Regulation and Market Trends
BIOSIMILARS - Regulation and Market Trends
Joseph Pategou
Area solv
Area solvArea solv
Area solv
Snehasish dutta
5 Hiring and Onboarding Practices That Create Engaged Employees
5 Hiring and Onboarding Practices That Create Engaged Employees5 Hiring and Onboarding Practices That Create Engaged Employees
5 Hiring and Onboarding Practices That Create Engaged Employees
Qualtrics
Grupos de Usuarios y Plantillas
Grupos de Usuarios y PlantillasGrupos de Usuarios y Plantillas
Grupos de Usuarios y Plantillas
syed usman ali shah
The Book of Liberty
The Book of LibertyThe Book of Liberty
The Book of Liberty
David Turner
Thanksgiving, An Attitude of Gratitude.
Thanksgiving, An Attitude of Gratitude.Thanksgiving, An Attitude of Gratitude.
Thanksgiving, An Attitude of Gratitude.
David Turner
Wrestling In A Dark World John 15:18-16:4 and Ephesians 6:12-13
Wrestling In A Dark World John 15:18-16:4 and Ephesians 6:12-13Wrestling In A Dark World John 15:18-16:4 and Ephesians 6:12-13
Wrestling In A Dark World John 15:18-16:4 and Ephesians 6:12-13
David Turner
BIOSIMILARS - Regulation and Market Trends
BIOSIMILARS - Regulation and Market Trends    BIOSIMILARS - Regulation and Market Trends
BIOSIMILARS - Regulation and Market Trends
Joseph Pategou
5 Hiring and Onboarding Practices That Create Engaged Employees
5 Hiring and Onboarding Practices That Create Engaged Employees5 Hiring and Onboarding Practices That Create Engaged Employees
5 Hiring and Onboarding Practices That Create Engaged Employees
Qualtrics

Similar to Table 1 (8)

table 2
table 2table 2
table 2
Despina Ioannidou
Superficial bladder cancer
Superficial bladder cancerSuperficial bladder cancer
Superficial bladder cancer
Fouad Abdelshaheed
Epidemiological Exercises on case control studies
Epidemiological Exercises on case control studiesEpidemiological Exercises on case control studies
Epidemiological Exercises on case control studies
Jayaramachandran S
Carcinogenicity of Glyphosate A Systematic Review of the Available Evidence
Carcinogenicity of Glyphosate  A Systematic Review of the Available  EvidenceCarcinogenicity of Glyphosate  A Systematic Review of the Available  Evidence
Carcinogenicity of Glyphosate A Systematic Review of the Available Evidence
Asociaci坦n Toxicol坦gica Argentina
NFL 2013 Combine Data Multivariate Analysis
NFL 2013 Combine Data Multivariate AnalysisNFL 2013 Combine Data Multivariate Analysis
NFL 2013 Combine Data Multivariate Analysis
John Michael Croft
Sample size in general
Sample size in generalSample size in general
Sample size in general
Mmedsc Hahm
New Epidemiologic Measures in Multilevel Study: Median Risk Ratio, Median Haz...
New Epidemiologic Measures in Multilevel Study: Median Risk Ratio, Median Haz...New Epidemiologic Measures in Multilevel Study: Median Risk Ratio, Median Haz...
New Epidemiologic Measures in Multilevel Study: Median Risk Ratio, Median Haz...
Jinseob Kim
New perspectives in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis - Profe...
New perspectives in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis - Profe...New perspectives in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis - Profe...
New perspectives in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis - Profe...
WAidid
Epidemiological Exercises on case control studies
Epidemiological Exercises on case control studiesEpidemiological Exercises on case control studies
Epidemiological Exercises on case control studies
Jayaramachandran S
Carcinogenicity of Glyphosate A Systematic Review of the Available Evidence
Carcinogenicity of Glyphosate  A Systematic Review of the Available  EvidenceCarcinogenicity of Glyphosate  A Systematic Review of the Available  Evidence
Carcinogenicity of Glyphosate A Systematic Review of the Available Evidence
Asociaci坦n Toxicol坦gica Argentina
NFL 2013 Combine Data Multivariate Analysis
NFL 2013 Combine Data Multivariate AnalysisNFL 2013 Combine Data Multivariate Analysis
NFL 2013 Combine Data Multivariate Analysis
John Michael Croft
Sample size in general
Sample size in generalSample size in general
Sample size in general
Mmedsc Hahm
New Epidemiologic Measures in Multilevel Study: Median Risk Ratio, Median Haz...
New Epidemiologic Measures in Multilevel Study: Median Risk Ratio, Median Haz...New Epidemiologic Measures in Multilevel Study: Median Risk Ratio, Median Haz...
New Epidemiologic Measures in Multilevel Study: Median Risk Ratio, Median Haz...
Jinseob Kim
New perspectives in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis - Profe...
New perspectives in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis - Profe...New perspectives in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis - Profe...
New perspectives in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis - Profe...
WAidid

Table 1

  • 1. Table 1. Size-effects for each study resulting from the comparison between the performances of AD patients and normal subjects(group effects) Study Effect size information Sig. AD patients vs controls(group effect) size effect r . 1)Salmon et al (1988) 2)Heindel et al (1989) 3)Randolph (1991) 4)Bondi & Kaszniak (1991) 5)Keane & Gabrieli (1991) 6)Burke et al (1994) 7)Gabrieli et al (1994) 8)Grosse et al (1990) 9)Partridge et al (1990) 10)Scott et al (1991) t-test reported as 4.0, df=24 t-test reported as 4.73, df=26 t-test reported as 3.2, df=28 F reported as significant at 0.03 with df=2,40(i.e.N=44) F reported as significant at 0.01 with df=1.18(i.e.N=20) F reported as significant at 0.001 with df=1,36(N=40) F reported as significant at 0.01 with df=1,28(i.e.N=30) F reported as significant at 1.0 but not given(N=27) t-test reported as 0.8, df=28 F reported as significant at 0.01 with df=1,26(i.e.N=28) 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.03 0.01 0.001 0.01 1.0 0.05 0.01 difference difference difference difference difference difference difference indifference difference difference r = 0.64 r = 0.68 r = 0.51 r = 0.28 r = 0.52 r = 0.48 r = 0.42 r = -0.44 r = 0.14 r = 0.43
  • 2. 11)Russo & Spinler (1994) 12) Huberman & Moscovitch (1994) 13)Fleischman et al (1997) 14) Park et al(1998) 15)Christensen et al (1992) 16)Randolph et al (1995) 17)Downes et al (1996) exp 1 exp 2 F reported as significant at 1.0 but not given(N=24) F reported as significant at 0.25 with df=3,51(i.e.N=55) F reported as significant at 0.28 but not given (N=52) F reported as significant at 1.0 but not given (N=32) given F reported as significant at 0.01 under two conditions, N=42 F reported as significant at 0.01 with df=1,12 (N=14) F reported as significant at 0.05 N=28 1.0 0.25 0.28 1.0 0.193 0.01 0.01 0.05 indifference indifference indifference indifference indifference difference difference indifference r = -0.47 r = 0.09 r = 0.08 r = -0.41 r = 0.15 from d=0.30 r = 0.35 r = 0.62 r = 0.31