Student Theses, Dissertations and Capstones

Document Type

Thesis - NSU Access Only

Degree Name

Master of Science (M.S.) in Dentistry

Copyright Statement

All rights reserved. This publication is intended for use solely by faculty, students, and staff of Nova Southeastern University. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, now known or later developed, including but not limited to photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the author or the publisher.

Department

College of Dental Medicine

First Advisor

Chin-Yu Lin

Date of original Performance / Presentation

January 2025

Publication Date / Copyright Date

1-1-2025

Abstract

Objective: The objective was to determine the difference in effect size estimate reporting in leading orthodontics journals. This study also analyzed the relationship between reporting ratios and impact factors. Background: Effect size estimate reporting is crucial in research as it is essential for the sample size calculation in research design and provides a measure of the practical significance of results. However, its use in orthodontic journals remains unknown. Materials and methods: All experimental articles (n=201) published in 2023 in the top orthodontics journals, such as the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), the Angle Orthodontist (AO), Progress in Orthodontics (PO), and Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research (OCR), and the American Journal of Psychology (AJP) published in year 2021 were compared to determine the difference in percentage of effect size estimate reporting in research design and in results by Chi-square analysis (α=0.05). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni corrections were used to determine the locations of differences. Regression analysis (α=0.05) was used to analyze the relationship between percentage of effect size reporting and impact factor. Results: All journals showed varied frequencies of effect size estimate reporting in research design (AJP: 35.3%, AJODO: 34.1%, AO: 51.2%, OCR: 21.9%, PO: 58.3%) and in results (AJP: 88.2%, AJODO: 15.9%, AO: 4.7%, OCR: 13.7%, PO: 33.3%). Statistically significant differences in the frequency of effect size reporting across journals were found in research design (p = 0.003; Cramér’s V = 0.134) and results (p < 0.001; Cramér’s V=0.217). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons showed significant differences in the percentage of effect size reporting in research design between AJP and orthodontic journals, and between AO and OCR. In the section of results, post-hoc pairwise comparisons showed significant differences between AJP and orthodontic journals. Linear regression found no significant association between journal impact factor and effect size reporting in either research design (p = 0.282) or results (p = 0.152). Conclusion: There are significant and meaningful differences in the reporting of effect size estimates in research design and in results between journals examined. Low in reports of effect size estimate in orthodontic journals suggests insufficiency in research methodology across the orthodontic literature.

Disciplines

Dentistry

Download

Download Full Text (1.3 MB)

Download
To access this thesis/dissertation you must have a valid nova.edu OR mynsu.nova.edu email address and create an account for NSUWorks.

Free My Thesis

If you are the author of this work and would like to grant permission to make it openly accessible to all, please click the Free My Thesis button.

  Contact Author

Share

 
COinS