Randomized trial estimates effect size thresholds in physiotherapy, suggesting standardized interpretation methods.
(1) Background: Effect size interpretation in physiotherapy research varies across statistical models, hindering comparability between studies using linear, logistic, and variance-based analyses. Unified, discipline-specific thresholds are needed to harmonise interpretation and support consistent sample size planning in clinical trials. The aim is to estimate physiotherapy-specific reference values for odds ratio (OR), relative risk (RR), and η2/ηp2 based on empirically established thresholds for Cohen’s d (0.1, 0.4, and 0.8). (2) Methods: Cohen’s d values were transformed into corresponding effect size metrics using deterministic algebraic relationships. Specifically, OR, RR, and η2 were derived from Cohen’s d under selected baseline risks (p0 = 0.1, 0.2, and 0.5). Calculations were performed in R 4.3.1 assuming equal group sizes and homogeneity of variances. (3) Results: OR thresholds were 1.20 (small), 2.07 (medium), and 4.27 (large). For RR, at p0 = 0.1, thresholds were 1.18, 1.95, and 3.22; at p0 = 0.5, they were 1.09, 1.35, and 1.62. Corresponding η2/ηp2 values were 0.003, 0.039, and 0.138. (4) Conclusions: The derived thresholds form a coherent, numerically anchored framework linking linear, logistic, and variance-based effect sizes. This approach standardises interpretation across statistical models and strengthens methodological consistency in physiotherapy clinical research.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Grzegorz Zieliński (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: