R. Rosenthal and D. B. Rubin (2003) proposed an effect size, r equivalent, to be used when (a) only sample size and p values are known for a study, (b) there are no generally accepted effect size indicators, or (c) sample sizes are so small or the data so non-normal that the directly computed effect sizes would be more misleading than the simple effect size. The limitations of their proposal, however, are many, and much more serious than the authors suggested, and should be carefully considered before this effect size is applied, as well as in developing other effect sizes using similar methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Helena C. Kraemer (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: