This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
Amaya, A., Presser, S., 2016. Nonresponse Bias for Univariate and Multivariate Estimates of Social Activities and Roles. Public Opinion Quarterly 81(1), 1–36.AmayaA.PresserS.2016Nonresponse Bias for Univariate and Multivariate Estimates of Social Activities and Roles811136Search in Google Scholar
Barnes, J.C., Sketch, M., Gramza, A.R., Sorice, M.G., Iovanna, R., Dayer, A.A., 2020. Land use decisions after the Conservation Reserve Program: Re-enrollment, reversion, and persistence in the southern Great Plains. Conservation Science and Practice 2(9), e254.BarnesJ.C.SketchM.GramzaA.R.SoriceM.G.IovannaR.DayerA.A.2020Land use decisions after the Conservation Reserve Program: Re-enrollment, reversion, and persistence in the southern Great Plains29e254Search in Google Scholar
Brooks, M.E., Dalal, D.K., Nolan, K.P., 2014. Are common language effect sizes easier to understand than traditional effect sizes? Journal of Applied Psychology 99, 332–340.BrooksM.E.DalalD.K.NolanK.P.2014Are common language effect sizes easier to understand than traditional effect sizes?99332340Search in Google Scholar
Cliff, N., 1993. Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. Psychological Bulletin 114, 494–509.CliffN.1993Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions114494509Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.CohenJ.19882nd edErlbaumHillsdale, NJSearch in Google Scholar
Coon, J.J., Van Riper, C.J., Morton, L.W., Miller, J.R., 2020. Evaluating Nonresponse Bias in Survey Research Conducted in the Rural Midwest. Society & Natural Resources 33, 968–986.CoonJ.J.Van RiperC.J.MortonL.W.MillerJ.R.2020Evaluating Nonresponse Bias in Survey Research Conducted in the Rural Midwest33968986Search in Google Scholar
Dayer, A.A., Lutter, S.H., Sesser, K.A., Hickey, C.M., Gardali, T., 2018. Private Landowner Conservation Behavior Following Participation in Voluntary Incentive Programs: Recommendations to Facilitate Behavioral Persistence: Facilitating landowner behavioral persistence. Conservation Letters 11, e12394.DayerA.A.LutterS.H.SesserK.A.HickeyC.M.GardaliT.2018Private Landowner Conservation Behavior Following Participation in Voluntary Incentive Programs: Recommendations to Facilitate Behavioral Persistence: Facilitating landowner behavioral persistence11e12394Search in Google Scholar
de Winter, J.F.C., Dodou, D., n.d. Five-Point Likert Items: t test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Addendum added October 2012). Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 15, Article 11.de WinterJ.F.C.DodouD.n.d.Five-Point Likert Items: t test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon (Addendum added October 2012)15Article 11.Search in Google Scholar
Delaney, H.D., Vargha, A., 2002. Comparing several robust tests of stochastic equality with ordinally scaled variables and small to moderate sized samples. Psychological Methods 7, 485–503.DelaneyH.D.VarghaA.2002Comparing several robust tests of stochastic equality with ordinally scaled variables and small to moderate sized samples7485503Search in Google Scholar
Farm Service Agency (FSA), USDA, 2022. Acres on Contracts Expiring Between 2018 – 2022 that Have Been Enrolled More than Once. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Conservation/PDF/Acres%20on%20Contracts%20Expiring%20Between%202018-2%20that%20Have%20Been%20Enrolled%20More%20than%20Once%20Sep%202017.pdf. Accessed 9/29/2023.Farm Service Agency (FSA), USDA2022https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Conservation/PDF/Acres%20on%20Contracts%20Expiring%20Between%202018-2%20that%20Have%20Been%20Enrolled%20More%20than%20Once%20Sep%202017.pdf. Accessed 9/29/2023.Search in Google Scholar
Fritz, C.O., Morris, P.E., Richler, J.J., 2012. Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141, 2–18.FritzC.O.MorrisP.E.RichlerJ.J.2012Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation141218Search in Google Scholar
Groves, R.M., 2006. Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 70, 646–675.GrovesR.M.2006Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys70646675Search in Google Scholar
Hellevik, O., 2016. Extreme nonresponse and response bias: A “worst case” analysis. Quality & Quantity 50, 1969–1991.HellevikO.2016Extreme nonresponse and response bias: A “worst case” analysis5019691991Search in Google Scholar
Hendra, R., Hill, A., 2019. Rethinking Response Rates: New Evidence of Little Relationship Between Survey Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias. Evaluation Review 43, 307–330.HendraR.HillA.2019Rethinking Response Rates: New Evidence of Little Relationship Between Survey Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias43307330Search in Google Scholar
Kassambara, A., 2022. rstatix: Pipe-Friendly Framework for Basic Statistical Tests. R package version 0.7.1, 2022. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rstatixKassambaraA.2022https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rstatixSearch in Google Scholar
Kirk, R.E., 1996. Practical Significance: A Concept Whose Time Has Come. Educational and Psychological Measurement 56, 746–759.KirkR.E.1996Practical Significance: A Concept Whose Time Has Come56746759Search in Google Scholar
Kloke, J., McKean, J.W., 2014. Nonparametric Statistical Methods Using R, Chapman and Hall/CRC.KlokeJ.McKeanJ.W.2014Chapman and Hall/CRCSearch in Google Scholar
Liu, P., Wang, Y., Zhang, W., 2023. The influence of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program on local water quality. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 105, 27–51.LiuP.WangY.ZhangW.2023The influence of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program on local water quality1052751Search in Google Scholar
Maher, A.T., Quintana Ashwell, N.E., Tanaka, J.A., Ritten, J.P., Maczko, K.A., 2023. Financial barriers and opportunities for conservation adoption on U.S. rangelands: A region-wide, ranch-level economic assessment of NRCS-sponsored Greater Sage-grouse habitat conservation programs. Journal of Environmental Management 329, 116420.MaherA.T.Quintana AshwellN.E.TanakaJ.A.RittenJ.P.MaczkoK.A.2023Financial barriers and opportunities for conservation adoption on U.S. rangelands: A region-wide, ranch-level economic assessment of NRCS-sponsored Greater Sage-grouse habitat conservation programs329116420Search in Google Scholar
Mangiafico, S.S., 2023a. rcompanion: Functions to Support Extension Education Program Evaluation. R package version 2.4.30, 2023. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rcompanionMangiaficoS.S.2023aR package version 2.4.30, 2023.
https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rcompanionSearch in Google Scholar
Mangiafico, S.S., 2023b. Two-sample Mann–Whitney U Test, in: Summary and Analysis of Extension Program Evaluation in R. Rutgers Cooperative Extension, New Brunswick, NJ.MangiaficoS.S.2023bTwo-sample Mann–Whitney U Testin:Rutgers Cooperative ExtensionNew Brunswick, NJSearch in Google Scholar
McGraw, K.O., Wong, S.P., 1992. A common language effect size statistic. Psychological Bulletin 111, 361–365.McGrawK.O.WongS.P.1992A common language effect size statistic111361365Search in Google Scholar
Pathak, S., Paudel, K.P., Adusumilli, N.C., 2021. Impact of the Federal Conservation Program Participation on Conservation Practice Adoption Intensity in Louisiana, USA. Environmental Management 68, 1–16.PathakS.PaudelK.P.AdusumilliN.C.2021Impact of the Federal Conservation Program Participation on Conservation Practice Adoption Intensity in Louisiana, USA68116Search in Google Scholar
Prokopy, L.S., Floress, K., Arbuckle, J.G., Church, S.P., Eanes, F.R., Gao, Y., Gramig, B.M., Ranjan, P., Singh, A.S., 2019. Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: Evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 74, 520–534.ProkopyL.S.FloressK.ArbuckleJ.G.ChurchS.P.EanesF.R.GaoY.GramigB.M.RanjanP.SinghA.S.2019Adoption of agricultural conservation practices in the United States: Evidence from 35 years of quantitative literature74520534Search in Google Scholar
R Core Team, 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R 4.2.2, 2022. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/R Core Team2022R 4.2.2, 2022. Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/Search in Google Scholar
Ranjan, P., Church, S.P., Floress, K., Prokopy, L.S., 2019. Synthesizing Conservation Motivations and Barriers: What Have We Learned from Qualitative Studies of Farmers' Behaviors in the United States? Society & Natural Resources 32, 1171–1199.RanjanP.ChurchS.P.FloressK.ProkopyL.S.2019Synthesizing Conservation Motivations and Barriers: What Have We Learned from Qualitative Studies of Farmers' Behaviors in the United States?3211711199Search in Google Scholar
Ruscio, J., 2008. A probability-based measure of effect size: Robustness to base rates and other factors. Psychological Methods 13, 19–30.RuscioJ.2008A probability-based measure of effect size: Robustness to base rates and other factors131930Search in Google Scholar
Skaggs, R.K., Kirksey, R.E., Harper, W.M., 1994. Determinants And Implication of Post-CRP Land Use Decisions. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 19(2), 299–312.SkaggsR.K.KirkseyR.E.HarperW.M.1994Determinants And Implication of Post-CRP Land Use Decisions192299312Search in Google Scholar
Sweikert, L.A., Gigliotti, L.M., 2019a. Evaluating the role of Farm Bill conservation program participation in conserving America's grasslands. Land Use Policy 81, 392–399.SweikertL.A.GigliottiL.M.2019aEvaluating the role of Farm Bill conservation program participation in conserving America's grasslands81392399Search in Google Scholar
Sweikert, L.A., Gigliotti, L.M., 2019b. Understanding conservation decisions of agriculture producers. The Journal of Wildlife Management 83, 993–1004.SweikertL.A.GigliottiL.M.2019bUnderstanding conservation decisions of agriculture producers839931004Search in Google Scholar
Torchiano, M., 2016. Effsize - a package for efficient effect size computation. https://zenodo.org/record/196082.TorchianoM.2016https://zenodo.org/record/196082.Search in Google Scholar
Vargha, A., Delaney, H.D., 2000. A Critique and Improvement of the “CL” Common Language Effect Size Statistics of McGraw and Wong. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 25, 101.VarghaA.DelaneyH.D.2000A Critique and Improvement of the “CL” Common Language Effect Size Statistics of McGraw and Wong25101Search in Google Scholar
Wan, Z., Xia, X., Lo, D., Murphy, G.C., 2020. How does Machine Learning Change Software Development Practices? IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 49, 1857–1871.WanZ.XiaX.LoD.MurphyG.C.2020How does Machine Learning Change Software Development Practices?4918571871Search in Google Scholar