Effect sizes quantify the magnitude of group differences, yet hearing aid research still relies on Cohen's benchmarks (0.20, 0.50, 0.80). These cutoffs are not field specific and may misrepresent typical effects. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to characterize the distribution of effect sizes in adult hearing aid research and use these data to estimate sample sizes required to achieve varying levels of...
No immediate change to clinical practice; however, audiologists evaluating hearing aid research should be aware that many published studies may be underpowered or misclassified by generic effect-size benchmarks, warranting critical appraisal of statistical conclusions.
If hearing aid research routinely uses inappropriate statistical benchmarks, the field risks drawing false conclusions about treatment effectiveness, potentially misleading clinical guidelines and product evaluations.
- 01Cohen's classic effect-size benchmarks (0.20/0.50/0.80) were developed for psychology, not audiology.
- 02Paper argues these benchmarks are inadequate for hearing aid research and may inflate or deflate statistical conclusions.
- 03Many hearing aid studies may be systematically underpowered if wrong benchmarks guide sample-size calculations.
- 04Authors call for field-specific effect-size norms to be developed for audiology.
- 05Published in the American Journal of Audiology (AJA), a peer-reviewed source.
Cohen's generic effect-size benchmarks (0.20, 0.50, 0.80) are not appropriate for hearing aid research.
studypartially supportedHearing aid research studies may be inadequately powered due to reliance on non-field-specific effect-size conventions.
studypartially supported- PMID
- 42263203
- DOI
- 10.1044/2026_AJA-25-00223.
- Journal
- American Journal of Audiology
- Publication type
- research_article
- Evidence level
- 5
- Population
- Hearing aid research literature (methodological/meta-level analysis)
- Intervention
- Analysis of effect sizes and statistical power in published hearing aid research
- Comparator
- Cohen's generic effect-size benchmarks (0.20, 0.50, 0.80)
Primary outcomes
Adequacy of Cohen's benchmarks for hearing aid research; Statistical power levels in hearing aid studies