Cross Validated is a question and answer site for people interested in statistics, machine learning, data analysis, data mining, and data visualization. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

It's hard for me to accept that Donald Rubin would ever come up with a true lemon of a technique. Yet that's my perception of the BESD [1, 2], 3]3. He and Robert Rosenthal (1982*) claimed that there was value in showing "how to recast any product-moment correlation into such a [2x2] display, whether the original data are continuous or categorical." The table below is from p. 451 of the 2nd link above:

enter image description here

This technique seems to overstate the magnitude of almost any effect size. Here, RSQ from the original data = .01, but when "translated" into a 2x2 crosstab, we seem to be faced with a much stronger effect. I don't deny that, when the data are recast into categorical format in this way, phi indeed = .1, but I feel something has been very distorted in the translation.

Am I missing something truly valuable here? Also, I have the impression that in the past 10 or so years the statistical community has by and large rejected this as a legitimate method; am I wrong on that?

*Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D.B. (1982). A simple general purpose display of magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 166–169.

share|improve this question

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.