1. Table 1. Size-effects for each study resulting from the comparison between the performances of AD patients and normal subjects(group effects)
Study Effect size information Sig. AD patients vs controls(group effect) size effect r .
1)Salmon et al (1988)
2)Heindel et al (1989)
3)Randolph (1991)
4)Bondi & Kaszniak (1991)
5)Keane & Gabrieli (1991)
6)Burke et al (1994)
7)Gabrieli et al (1994)
8)Grosse et al (1990)
9)Partridge et al (1990)
10)Scott et al (1991)
t-test reported as 4.0, df=24
t-test reported as 4.73, df=26
t-test reported as 3.2, df=28
F reported as significant at 0.03
with df=2,40(i.e.N=44)
F reported as significant at 0.01
with df=1.18(i.e.N=20)
F reported as significant at 0.001
with df=1,36(N=40)
F reported as significant at 0.01
with df=1,28(i.e.N=30)
F reported as significant at 1.0
but not given(N=27)
t-test reported as 0.8, df=28
F reported as significant at 0.01
with df=1,26(i.e.N=28)
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.03
0.01
0.001
0.01
1.0
0.05
0.01
difference
difference
difference
difference
difference
difference
difference
indifference
difference
difference
r = 0.64
r = 0.68
r = 0.51
r = 0.28
r = 0.52
r = 0.48
r = 0.42
r = -0.44
r = 0.14
r = 0.43

2. 11)Russo & Spinler (1994)
12) Huberman & Moscovitch (1994)
13)Fleischman et al (1997)
14) Park et al(1998)
15)Christensen et al (1992)
16)Randolph et al (1995)
17)Downes et al (1996) exp 1
exp 2
F reported as significant at 1.0
but not given(N=24)
F reported as significant at 0.25
with df=3,51(i.e.N=55)
F reported as significant at 0.28
but not given (N=52)
F reported as significant at 1.0
but not given (N=32)
given
F reported as significant at 0.01
under two conditions, N=42
F reported as significant at 0.01
with df=1,12 (N=14)
F reported as significant at 0.05
N=28
1.0
0.25
0.28
1.0
0.193
0.01
0.01
0.05
indifference
indifference
indifference
indifference
indifference
difference
difference
indifference
r = -0.47
r = 0.09
r = 0.08
r = -0.41
r = 0.15
from d=0.30
r = 0.35
r = 0.62
r = 0.31