scholarly journals Statistical Power Analysis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Aberson
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Power Analysis ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Type I ◽  
Statistical Power Analysis ◽  
Emerging Trends ◽  
Optimal Probability ◽  
Innovative Work

Preprint of Chapter appearing as: Aberson, C. L. (2015). Statistical power analysis. In R. A. Scott & S. M. Kosslyn (Eds.) Emerging trends in the behavioral and social sciences. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Statistical power refers to the probability of rejecting a false null hypothesis (i.e., finding what the researcher wants to find). Power analysis allows researchers to determine adequate sample size for designing studies with an optimal probability for rejecting false null hypotheses. When conducted correctly, power analysis helps researchers make informed decisions about sample size selection. Statistical power analysis most commonly involves specifying statistic test criteria (Type I error rate), desired level of power, and the effect size expected in the population. This article outlines the basic concepts relevant to statistical power, factors that influence power, how to establish the different parameters for power analysis, and determination and interpretation of the effect size estimates for power. I also address innovative work such as the continued development of software resources for power analysis and protocols for designing for precision of confidence intervals (a.k.a., accuracy in parameter estimation). Finally, I outline understudied areas such as power analysis for designs with multiple predictors, reporting and interpreting power analyses in published work, designing for meaningfully sized effects, and power to detect multiple effects in the same study.

scholarly journals A Multi-faceted Mess: A Review of Statistical Power Analysis in Psychology Journal Articles

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Cribbie ◽  
Nataly Beribisky ◽  
Udi Alter
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Power Analysis ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Type I ◽  
Specific Level ◽  
Maximum Sample Size ◽  
Power Analyses

Many bodies recommend that a sample planning procedure, such as traditional NHST a priori power analysis, is conducted during the planning stages of a study. Power analysis allows the researcher to estimate how many participants are required in order to detect a minimally meaningful effect size at a specific level of power and Type I error rate. However, there are several drawbacks to the procedure that render it “a mess.” Specifically, the identification of the minimally meaningful effect size is often difficult but unavoidable for conducting the procedure properly, the procedure is not precision oriented, and does not guide the researcher to collect as many participants as feasibly possible. In this study, we explore how these three theoretical issues are reflected in applied psychological research in order to better understand whether these issues are concerns in practice. To investigate how power analysis is currently used, this study reviewed the reporting of 443 power analyses in high impact psychology journals in 2016 and 2017. It was found that researchers rarely use the minimally meaningful effect size as a rationale for the chosen effect in a power analysis. Further, precision-based approaches and collecting the maximum sample size feasible are almost never used in tandem with power analyses. In light of these findings, we offer that researchers should focus on tools beyond traditional power analysis when sample planning, such as collecting the maximum sample size feasible.

How to Detect Publication Bias in Psychological Research

2019 ◽  
Vol 227 (4) ◽  
pp. 261-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Renkewitz ◽  
Melanie Keiner
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Type I ◽  
True Effect Size ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
True Effect ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract. Publication biases and questionable research practices are assumed to be two of the main causes of low replication rates. Both of these problems lead to severely inflated effect size estimates in meta-analyses. Methodologists have proposed a number of statistical tools to detect such bias in meta-analytic results. We present an evaluation of the performance of six of these tools. To assess the Type I error rate and the statistical power of these methods, we simulated a large variety of literatures that differed with regard to true effect size, heterogeneity, number of available primary studies, and sample sizes of these primary studies; furthermore, simulated studies were subjected to different degrees of publication bias. Our results show that across all simulated conditions, no method consistently outperformed the others. Additionally, all methods performed poorly when true effect sizes were heterogeneous or primary studies had a small chance of being published, irrespective of their results. This suggests that in many actual meta-analyses in psychology, bias will remain undiscovered no matter which detection method is used.

Statistical Power Analysis can Improve Fisheries Research and Management

1990 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall M. Peterman
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Power Analysis ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Small Sample Size ◽  
Industrial Effluent ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Detectable Effect ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Sampling Variability ◽  
Statistical Power Analysis

Ninety-eight percent of recently surveyed papers in fisheries and aquatic sciences that did not reject some null hypothesis (H0) failed to report β, the probability of making a type II error (not rejecting H0 when it should have been), or statistical power (1 – β). However, 52% of those papers drew conclusions as if H0 were true. A false H0 could have been missed because of a low-power experiment, caused by small sample size or large sampling variability. Costs of type II errors can be large (for example, for cases that fail to detect harmful effects of some industrial effluent or a significant effect of fishing on stock depletion). Past statistical power analyses show that abundance estimation techniques usually have high β and that only large effects are detectable. I review relationships among β, power, detectable effect size, sample size, and sampling variability. I show how statistical power analysis can help interpret past results and improve designs of future experiments, impact assessments, and management regulations. I make recommendations for researchers and decision makers, including routine application of power analysis, more cautious management, and reversal of the burden of proof to put it on industry, not management agencies.

scholarly journals Required sample size for comparing two independent means

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 106-113
Author(s):  
A. M. Grjibovski ◽  
M. A. Gorbatova ◽  
A. N. Narkevich ◽  
K. A. Vinogradov
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Type I ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
False Null Hypothesis ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Russian Research

Sample size calculation in a planning phase is still uncommon in Russian research practice. This situation threatens validity of the conclusions and may introduce Type I error when the false null hypothesis is accepted due to lack of statistical power to detect the existing difference between the means. Comparing two means using unpaired Students’ ttests is the most common statistical procedure in the Russian biomedical literature. However, calculations of the minimal required sample size or retrospective calculation of the statistical power were observed only in very few publications. In this paper we demonstrate how to calculate required sample size for comparing means in unpaired samples using WinPepi and Stata software. In addition, we produced tables for minimal required sample size for studies when two means have to be compared and body mass index and blood pressure are the variables of interest. The tables were constructed for unpaired samples for different levels of statistical power and standard deviations obtained from the literature.

scholarly journals Towards a simplified justification of the chosen sample size

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick J. Broers ◽  
Henry Otgaar
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Power Analysis ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Minimal Effect ◽  
Expected Effect ◽  
Sufficient Statistical Power

Since the early work of Cohen (1962) psychological researchers have become aware of the importance of doing a power analysis to ensure that the predicted effect will be detectable with sufficient statistical power. APA guidelines require researchers to provide a justification of the chosen sample size with reference to the expected effect size; an expectation that should be based on previous research. However, we argue that a credible estimate of an expected effect size is only reasonable under two conditions: either the new study forms a direct replication of earlier work or the outcome scale makes use of meaningful and familiar units that allow for the quantification of a minimal effect of psychological interest. In practice neither of these conditions is usually met. We propose a different rationale for a power analysis that will ensure that researchers will be able to justify their sample size as meaningful and adequate.

scholarly journals Statistical Power in Plant Pathology Research

2018 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
David H. Gent ◽  
Paul D. Esker ◽  
Alissa B. Kriss
Keyword(s):  
Plant Pathology ◽  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Power Analysis ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Statistical Test ◽  
Type I ◽  
Type Ii ◽  
Type Ii Errors

In null hypothesis testing, failure to reject a null hypothesis may have two potential interpretations. One interpretation is that the treatments being evaluated do not have a significant effect, and a correct conclusion was reached in the analysis. Alternatively, a treatment effect may have existed but the conclusion of the study was that there was none. This is termed a Type II error, which is most likely to occur when studies lack sufficient statistical power to detect a treatment effect. In basic terms, the power of a study is the ability to identify a true effect through a statistical test. The power of a statistical test is 1 – (the probability of Type II errors), and depends on the size of treatment effect (termed the effect size), variance, sample size, and significance criterion (the probability of a Type I error, α). Low statistical power is prevalent in scientific literature in general, including plant pathology. However, power is rarely reported, creating uncertainty in the interpretation of nonsignificant results and potentially underestimating small, yet biologically significant relationships. The appropriate level of power for a study depends on the impact of Type I versus Type II errors and no single level of power is acceptable for all purposes. Nonetheless, by convention 0.8 is often considered an acceptable threshold and studies with power less than 0.5 generally should not be conducted if the results are to be conclusive. The emphasis on power analysis should be in the planning stages of an experiment. Commonly employed strategies to increase power include increasing sample sizes, selecting a less stringent threshold probability for Type I errors, increasing the hypothesized or detectable effect size, including as few treatment groups as possible, reducing measurement variability, and including relevant covariates in analyses. Power analysis will lead to more efficient use of resources and more precisely structured hypotheses, and may even indicate some studies should not be undertaken. However, the conclusions of adequately powered studies are less prone to erroneous conclusions and inflated estimates of treatment effectiveness, especially when effect sizes are small.

A more efficient three-arm non-inferiority test based on pooled estimators of the homogeneous variance

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (8) ◽  
pp. 2437-2446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hezhi Lu ◽  
Hua Jin ◽  
Weixiong Zeng
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Error Rate ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Statistical Testing ◽  
New Method ◽  
Type I ◽  
Simulation Studies ◽  
Testing Framework ◽  
Better Than

Hida and Tango established a statistical testing framework for the three-arm non-inferiority trial including a placebo with a pre-specified non-inferiority margin to overcome the shortcomings of traditional two-arm non-inferiority trials (such as having to choose the non-inferiority margin). In this paper, we propose a new method that improves their approach with respect to two aspects. We construct our testing statistics based on the best unbiased pooled estimators of the homogeneous variance; and we use the principle of intersection-union tests to determine the rejection rule. We theoretically prove that our test is better than that of Hida and Tango for large sample sizes. Furthermore, when that sample size was small or moderate, our simulation studies showed that our approach performed better than Hida and Tango’s. Although both controlled the type I error rate, their test was more conservative and the statistical power of our test was higher.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document