I'm doing a meta-analysis of one-sample t-tests and I want to find a variance standardizing transformation for Cohen's d for one sample t-test and the variance of the transformed effect size (to verify that the PET-PEESE results are not affected by the induced correlation between effect sizes and standard errors due to using Cohen's d for one-sample t-tests). In other words, an equivalent to Fisher's z transformation for correlation coefficient and its variance.

From reading the Wikipedia page on variance standardizing transformations, I understand that I need a formula h(u) for the variance of one-sample t-test. Then apply the formula

enter image description here

to obtain the transformation. Finally, I need to get a distribution of Cohen's d for one-sample t-test and find out how the change of variables from the derived formula changes the variance.

I found 3 different suggestions for the variance of Cohen's d for one-sample t-test here and a suggestion to use 1/n in the reply to the answer here. If 1/n was indeed the variance for Cohen's d of one-sample t-test, it would have greatly simplified the whole process -- it would already be variance stabilized. However, I do not believe it to be true since the uncertainty in the variance of the original observations (which is probably Chi^2 distributed) should propagate into the distribution of Cohen's d (as similarly explained for two-sample t-test here).

Assuming that either one of the proposed formulas in 3 holds, the variance stabilizing transformations (dropping the constants) would be:

enter image description here for the second variance defined in 3 and computed by wolfram alpha


enter image description here for the third variance defined in 3 and computed by wolfram alpha

(I did not used the first formula since the post shows that it aproximates the true variance poorly).

Then, I "just" need to apply the transformations to the distribution of Cohen's d for one-sample t-test and obtain its variance after transformation, however, I could not find it anywhere, and I am not sure that I would be able to make the final step correctly.

Thanks, Frantisek

  • $\begingroup$ One problem with the formulas derived in this way is that the effect size made dependent on the sample size. I run a few simulations and it seems like that the variance of the first one is slightly above 1 and approaching it as N increases. The variance of the second formula seems to be more dependent on N. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 23, 2021 at 10:16


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.