The phrase "average weighted effect" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts involving statistics, data analysis, or research where you want to describe an effect that takes into account the average of different weights assigned to various factors.
Example: "The study calculated the average weighted effect of the different variables on the outcome, providing a more accurate representation of their influence."
Alternatives: "weighted average effect" or "mean weighted impact".
The quantitative synthesis showed that genetic counselling leads to statistically significant decreases in generalized anxiety, with an average weighted effect sizes of r=−0.17 (p<0.01).
The average weighted effect size of both of these studies is Cohen's d = 3.45, and requires a total sample size of just 6 participants.
A meta-analysis on the relation between marital satisfaction and personal wellbeing, in which wellbeing was assessed using depression and anxiety symptoms scales, reported an average weighted effect size r of.37 for cross-sectional and.25 for longitudinal prospective designs (Proulx et al. 2007).
Intervention scenarios combined two intervention groups and hence average (weighted) effects on PA were implemented in the Chronic Disease Model.
In a meta-analysis involving 28 studies of children treated with cranial radiation, intrathecal chemotherapy, or both, the average weighted standardized effect size for FSIQ was –0.71, corresponding to 10.65 points (Campbell et al. 2007).
Knowledge showed the largest effect with a mean effect size of d+ 1.05 in diabetes education [ 45] (the effect size 'd' represents the standardised mean difference between treatment and control groups, measured in standard deviation units; d+ is the average unbiased weighted effect size).
Meta-analytic software (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 2.0) was used to calculate average z scores and P values, weighted effect size r values, and the 95% CI around the collective effect size values.
Outputs included inverse variance weighted effect size and also average correlation (using the Wang and Bushman approach).
The random effects weighted average effect size for achievement was g+ = 0.27, k = 879, p < .05, and for attitude outcomes it was g+ = 0.20, k = 181, p < .05.05
Weighted average effect sizes (SMD, random-effects) and heterogeneity (Q and I 2 statistics) of the intervention-induced changes of tendon stiffness, Young's modulus, and CSA were calculated.
Weighted average effect sizes for each cognitive domain are shown in Table 4.
