PreprintCC BY 4.0PsyArXiv
Revisiting the Interpretation of r and R2: A Comment on Funder & Ozer (2019)
Abstract
The article by Funder and Ozer (2019) emphasizes the important aspect that small correlations can be relevant, both theoretically and practically. However, we contend on two key points: (1) We contend that, when choosing between r and R2 as measures of effect size, R2 remains the superior measure. (2) Furthermore, we argue that despite the justified criticism of traditional, rigid thresholds for interpreting effects, the newly proposed guidelines by Funder & Ozer (2019) carry a risk of overinterpretation by conflating two distinct dimensions: the magnitude of a correlation and the relevance of a correlation.
Related
- Regarding the inference of causality in observational non-controlled studies. Comment on “Assessment of sexual function and its association with quality of life and disease severity in patients with atopic dermatitis”
- Comment on "The polarization hierarchy for polynomial optimization over convex bodies, with applications to nonnegative matrix rank"
- Comment on "Event-Triggered Stabilization of Linear Time-Delay Systems via Halanay-Type Inequality"
- Comment on "Symmetric Pseudo-Random Matrices"
- Comment l’arithmétique vit en classe : deux exemples, en troisième (REP) et en terminale, option maths expertes
BibTeX
@misc{thurn2026revisiting,
title = {{Revisiting the Interpretation of r and R2: A Comment on Funder & Ozer (2019)}},
author = {Christian Thurn and Michael Dantlgraber},
howpublished = {PsyArXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.31234/osf.io/7pn2t_v2},
url = {https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/7pn2t_v2/},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Revisiting the Interpretation of r and R2: A Comment on Funder & Ozer (2019)
AU - Christian Thurn
AU - Michael Dantlgraber
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/04
PB - PsyArXiv
DO - 10.31234/osf.io/7pn2t_v2
UR - https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/7pn2t_v2/
AB - The article by Funder and Ozer (2019) emphasizes the important aspect that small correlations can be relevant, both theoretically and practically. However, we contend on two key points: (1) We contend that, when choosing between r and R2 as measures of effect size, R2 remains the superior measure. (2) Furthermore, we argue that despite the justified criticism of traditional, rigid thresholds for interpreting effects, the newly proposed guidelines by Funder & Ozer (2019) carry a risk of overinterpretation by conflating two distinct dimensions: the magnitude of a correlation and the relevance of a correlation.
ER -