Literature DB >> 25111580

Statistical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli.

Jacob Westfall1, David A Kenny2, Charles M Judd3.   

Abstract

Researchers designing experiments in which a sample of participants responds to a sample of stimuli are faced with difficult questions about optimal study design. The conventional procedures of statistical power analysis fail to provide appropriate answers to these questions because they are based on statistical models in which stimuli are not assumed to be a source of random variation in the data, models that are inappropriate for experiments involving crossed random factors of participants and stimuli. In this article, we present new methods of power analysis for designs with crossed random factors, and we give detailed, practical guidance to psychology researchers planning experiments in which a sample of participants responds to a sample of stimuli. We extensively examine 5 commonly used experimental designs, describe how to estimate statistical power in each, and provide power analysis results based on a reasonable set of default parameter values. We then develop general conclusions and formulate rules of thumb concerning the optimal design of experiments in which a sample of participants responds to a sample of stimuli. We show that in crossed designs, statistical power typically does not approach unity as the number of participants goes to infinity but instead approaches a maximum attainable power value that is possibly small, depending on the stimulus sample. We also consider the statistical merits of designs involving multiple stimulus blocks. Finally, we provide a simple and flexible Web-based power application to aid researchers in planning studies with samples of stimuli.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25111580     DOI: 10.1037/xge0000014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen        ISSN: 0022-1015


  81 in total

1.  Visual and verbal working memory loads interfere with scene-viewing.

Authors:  Deborah A Cronin; Candace E Peacock; John M Henderson
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  When masters of abstraction run into a concrete wall: Experts failing arithmetic word problems.

Authors:  Hippolyte Gros; Emmanuel Sander; Jean-Pierre Thibaut
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2019-10

3.  Generalized SAMPLE SIZE Determination Formulas for Investigating Contextual Effects by a Three-Level Random Intercept Model.

Authors:  Satoshi Usami
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2016-11-01       Impact factor: 2.500

4.  Different tool training induces specific effects on body metric representation.

Authors:  Daniele Romano; Elena Uberti; Pietro Caggiano; Gianna Cocchini; Angelo Maravita
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 5.  Choosing Prediction Over Explanation in Psychology: Lessons From Machine Learning.

Authors:  Tal Yarkoni; Jacob Westfall
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2017-08-25

6.  NEURAL RESPONSES TO APPEARANCE-BEHAVIOR CONGRUITY.

Authors:  Brittany S Cassidy; Angela H Gutchess
Journal:  Soc Cogn       Date:  2015

7.  The role of limited salience of speech in selective attention to faces in toddlers with autism spectrum disorders.

Authors:  Frederick Shic; Quan Wang; Suzanne L Macari; Katarzyna Chawarska
Journal:  J Child Psychol Psychiatry       Date:  2019-08-30       Impact factor: 8.982

8.  What Should Researchers Expect When They Replicate Studies? A Statistical View of Replicability in Psychological Science.

Authors:  Prasad Patil; Roger D Peng; Jeffrey T Leek
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2016-07

9.  Influences of appearance-behaviour congruity on memory and social judgements.

Authors:  Brittany S Cassidy; Angela H Gutchess
Journal:  Memory       Date:  2014-09-02

10.  Proactive engagement of cognitive control modulates implicit approach-avoidance bias.

Authors:  Katia M Harlé; Jessica Bomyea; Andrea D Spadoni; Alan N Simmons; Charles T Taylor
Journal:  Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 3.282

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.