The phrase "a positive effect size" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used in statistical or research contexts to indicate that a treatment or intervention has a beneficial impact.
Example: "The study revealed a positive effect size, suggesting that the new medication significantly improved patient outcomes."
Alternatives: "a beneficial effect size" or "a favorable effect size".
Therefore, a positive effect size is interpreted as an achievement gap which favors native test takers, and a negative effect size favors immigrant examinees.
A positive effect size reflects a higher level of PA among children from single-parent families, compared to children from two-parent families.
A positive effect size indicates greater performance of the local plants compared to foreign plants in a given environment.
The effect size was estimated such that a negative effect size would indicate lower abundance in the Bt crop compared with the non-Bt control while a positive effect size would indicate higher abundance in the Bt crop.
(A negative effect size represents a decrease in the measure, a positive effect size an increase).
Thus, a positive effect size indicates that wild fish survive better than hybrids, the converse for a negative effect size.
Since new appointees tended to be more inexperienced we judged that the direction of any bias would be towards reducing any positive effect size.
In one case a significant positive effect size, indicating a higher abundance in Bt treatments, became nonsignificant with the elimination of a relatively large study while another changed from nonsignificant to positive with the elimination of a small study.
While this study found a moderate positive effect size (ES = 0.59) associated with ECE, this finding does not diminish the importance of good teaching.
Specifically, context-rich games had a large positive effect size (fixed effects model: Cohen's d = 1.105, CI = 0.896 to 1.314; random effects model: Cohen's d = 0.844, CI = 0.006 to 1.683) versus drill and repeat games which yielded a small positive effect size (fixed effects model: Cohen's d = 0.442, CI = 0.288 to 0.595; random effects model: Cohen's d = 0.406, CI = 0.162 to 0.650) on learning.
General results indicated a medium positive effect size when comparing game-based learning to traditional instructional approaches (fixed effects model: Cohen's d = 0.674, CI = 0.550 to 0.797; random effects model: Cohen's d = 0.528, CI = 0.197 to 0.859).
