THE FALLACY OF EMPLOYING STANDARDIZED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS AND CORRELATIONS AS MEASURES OF EFFECT

1986/02/01 by Sander Greenland, James J. Schlesselman, Michael H. Criqui · 2 voices · 6 citations
Economics, Econometrics and Finance · Health Professions · Social Sciences · #Food Security and Health in Diverse Populations #Health disparities and outcomes #Healthcare Policy and Management

paper · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114229

openalex publication_date 1986/02/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/19

Abstract

SANDER GREENLAND, JAMES J. SCHLESSELMAN, MICHAEL H. CRIQUI; THE FALLACY OF EMPLOYING STANDARDIZED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS AND CORRELATIONS AS MEASURES OF E

Cited by

• Common methodological mistakes
• U is for Unease: Reasons for Mistrusting Overlap Measures for Reporting Clinical Trials
• Thinking Clearly About Sampling and Representation With the Total Survey Error Framework
• Teacher Merit Pay: A Meta-Analysis
• Simulation-Based Power Analyses for the Smallest Effect Size of Interest: A Confidence-Interval Approach for Minimum-Effect and Equivalence Testing
• A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models

Discussions

• If you mean standardized coefficients, absolutely not. These are even less popular among statisticians than R^2 is. This Greenland paper is one of the most cited on the topic: doi.org/10.1093/oxfo... [bsky, 12 points, 2 comments]
• #statstab #305 The Fallacy of Employing Standardized Regression Coefficients and Correlations ad Measures of Effect Thoughts: Everyone loves effect sizes, but mind how you compute and interpret them. [bsky, 3 points, 0 comments]

Related

• How to Standardize Regression Coefficients
• Spurious Correlation and the Fallacy of the Ratio Standard Revisited
• Variable and Constant Performance Errors Within a Group of Individuals
• Thirteen Ways to Look at the Correlation Coefficient
• Percentage Coefficient (bp) -- Effect Size Analysis (Theory Paper 1)