Of course, when considering smaller effects power decreases.
The authors propose that an effect smaller than.10 is considered small, an effect close to.30 should be considered medium size or moderate, and an effect of.50 or larger should be considered a large effect.
According to the well-known thresholds set by Cohen, an effect size of less than 0.20 can be considered trivial, an effect size between 0.20 and 0.50 can be considered small, an effect size between 0.50 and 0.80 can be considered moderate, and an effect size greater than 0.80 is considered large [ 40].
An effect size of 0.20 to 0.50 was considered small, and an effect size >0.50 was considered moderate [ 29].
Thus, although many of the individual tidal amplitudes may be considered small, their net effect is to impose considerable variability on the IT system.
We related the interpretation of the effect size to Cohen's conventions [ 28, 29], in absence of effect sizes (/Cohen's d) in previous patient satisfaction publications: a standardized effect size of 0.2 is considered "small" in magnitude, an effect size of 0.5 "medium" and an effect size of 0.8 "large".
Traditionally, effect sizes of approximately 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 have been considered small, medium, and large effect sizes, respectively, and effect sizes of 0.10 or smaller have not been considered as important.
A Cohen's d of 0.41 was considered small and the minimum effect size for a clinically relevant effect, 1.15 and ≥2.70 were moderate and strong effects, respectively [ 37].
The effect sizes for HbA1c, zBMI, and age were considered medium (−0.5, −0.6, and −0.7, respectively) and the effect size for the number of consultations with a diabetes team was considered small (−0.3), whereas the effect sizes for EAT-12 and pubertal stage were considered high (−1.6 and −0.8).
