# Interpretation of effect sizes **URL:** \ **Category:** MaAsLin\ **Created:** [January 4, 2024, 4:23am UTC](https://forum.biobakery.org/t/interpretation-of-effect-sizes/6402 "2024-01-04T04:23:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 2\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Katb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/839c29/32.png) [@Katb](https://forum.biobakery.org/u/Katb)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2024, 4:23am UTC](https://forum.biobakery.org/t/interpretation-of-effect-sizes/6402/1 "2024-01-04T04:23:21Z")
Hello again, Is there any standardisation of actual effect sizes in Maaslin, or do I need to take in to account the relative abundance of the various species when I am interpreting these? I am using relative abundance data and selecting “normalisation = CLR” and “transformation = none”. I understand that if I opt for “standardisation = TRUE” , the metadata scales are standardised using Z-scores, however I couldn’t see anything about the relative abundance data. Many thanks, Katherine ---
**Author:** ![nearinj](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex027/user_avatar/forum.biobakery.org/nearinj/32/2135_2.png) [@nearinj](https://forum.biobakery.org/u/nearinj)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2024, 10:36pm UTC](https://forum.biobakery.org/t/interpretation-of-effect-sizes/6402/2 "2024-01-05T22:36:02Z")
Hi there, You need to keep in mind the units that you are measuring against which in this case would be CLR normalized abundances. To get a better idea on interpretation of effect sizes check out this forum post here: > [@Coefficient value greater than 1](https://forum.biobakery.org/t/coefficient-value-greater-than-1/614/6): > > Hi, I have a follow-up question on this topic. I have recently run Maaslin2 version 1.12.0 looking at group differences (so the sole predictor in my model is a binary categorical variable). I have included the parameter standardize=TRUE, but I am still getting coefficients larger than 1 (range = -0.03 to 1.57). Is that expected behavior? Thanks so much! Fran Cheers, Jacob Nearing