=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:01:26 -0500
Reply-To:     "Alexander J. Shackman" <ajshackman@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       "SPSSX(r) Discussion" <SPSSX-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         "Alexander J. Shackman" <ajshackman@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: effect size: eta-squared vs partial eta-squared
Comments: To: "Dogan, Enis" <edogan@air.org>
In-Reply-To:  <957C8A78DD5B6D42B7D33DBAB78CDC2F9ADC0C@dc2ex01.air.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

see also

http://web.uccs.edu/lbecker/Psy590/es.htm
and
http://web.uccs.edu/lbecker/SPSS/glm_effectsize.htm

On 7/18/06, Dogan, Enis <edogan@air.org> wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
>
>
> SPSS reports partial et-sq as opposed to eta-squared.
>
> I found in the literature the rule thumb for eta-squared as small
> (0.01), medium (0.06), and large (0.14) (Cohen, 1988).
>
> Does this apply to partial eta-squared as well?
>
> Also, the definition of eta-squared gives me the idea that it is no
> different than what some of us call partial R squared.
>
> Am I right?
>
>
>
> There is rumor out there that "researchers erroneously report partial
> eta-squared values as representing classical eta-squared values"
>
> http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~haguinis/APMinpress.pdf
>
>
>
> Any value in this argument?
>
>
>
> Thanx
>
>
>
> Enis
>
>
>


--
Alexander J. Shackman
Laboratory for Affective Neuroscience
Waisman Laboratory for Brain Imaging & Behavior
University of Wisconsin-Madison
1202 West Johnson Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53706

Telephone: +1 (608) 358-5025
FAX: +1 (608) 265-2875
EMAIL: ajshackman@gmail.com