(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.)BACKGROUND AND PURPOSEEvidence-based practice (EBP) is a key component of physical therapist (PT) education.1'2 The accreditation criteria developed by the Commission on Accreditation of Physical Therapist Education state that students should be able to critically evaluate sources of information, apply the knowledge appropriately, and integrate best-practice evidence in clinical decision-making.3 Interpreting the real world significance of research results requires specialized knowledge that may not be covered in graduate-level research methods and statistics courses.Research appraisal involves interpretation of statistical tests and the resulting P values associated with null hypothesis significance testing (NHST). However, the use of NHST is controversial, and its criticisms are well documented.4-10 Critiques of NHST include the arbitrary nature of alpha, the role it plays in publication bias, misinterpretation of P values, and the excessive influence of sample size.4,5'8-10 A common mistake is to equate statistical significance with clinical significance. Effect sizes offer an important way to move beyond the limitations of significance testing, because they offer estimates of the magnitude of treatment effects, betweengroup differences, and associations between variables.In 1999, the American Psychological Association (APA) convened a task force on statistical significance testing. The group concluded that the practice of significance testing should be deemphasized, and its recommendation to research authors was to include indices of effect size in research reports. The APA considers effect size reporting essential to good research.11 Currently, the editorial practices of top medical and rehabilitation medicine journals encourage the reporting of effect sizes. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement includes a recommendation to report effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for primary and secondary outcomes in randomized trials.12 Journals such as Physical Therapy and the Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy require authors to follow CONSORT guidelines.The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed review of commonly used effect size measures and to present opportunities for related learning activities. We discuss the uses, interpretations, applications, and strengths and limitations of each measure.POSITION AND RATIONNALEOur position is that a detailed, yet balanced presentation of effect size measures should be included in PT education to improve students' abilities to appraise the clinical and practical relevance of evidence. To critically appraise research, one must understand both the applications and limitations of effect size measures. When possible, we recommend comparing different effect sizes from the same data to demonstrate some of the nuances involved in choosing an effect size.Barriers to EBP in physical therapy include a lack of time, perceptions that findings are not generalizable or clinically relevant, and a lack of training in critical appraisal of research results.13-16 Knowledge transfer frameworks have received increased attention as formal processes that can mitigate these barriers and promote EBP in physical therapy.17,18 A thorough understanding of effect size measures may improve knowledge translation interventions. Effect size measures can be clinically relevant and they allow for comparison between studies and populations. The concepts may therefore help to bridge the gap between research findings and clinical decision-making.There are many journal articles and texts that review effect size. Most of them, however, focus on calculations and technicalities and do not provide practical suggestions for application of these concepts in research and teaching. This paper will focus instead on evaluation and interpretation of effect sizes as they apply to PT education, research, and practice. …