Literature DB >> 26186112

You Cannot Step Into the Same River Twice: When Power Analyses Are Optimistic.

Blakeley B McShane1, Ulf Böckenholt2.   

Abstract

Statistical power depends on the size of the effect of interest. However, effect sizes are rarely fixed in psychological research: Study design choices, such as the operationalization of the dependent variable or the treatment manipulation, the social context, the subject pool, or the time of day, typically cause systematic variation in the effect size. Ignoring this between-study variation, as standard power formulae do, results in assessments of power that are too optimistic. Consequently, when researchers attempting replication set sample sizes using these formulae, their studies will be underpowered and will thus fail at a greater than expected rate. We illustrate this with both hypothetical examples and data on several well-studied phenomena in psychology. We provide formulae that account for between-study variation and suggest that researchers set sample sizes with respect to our generally more conservative formulae. Our formulae generalize to settings in which there are multiple effects of interest. We also introduce an easy-to-use website that implements our approach to setting sample sizes. Finally, we conclude with recommendations for quantifying between-study variation.
© The Author(s) 2014.

Keywords:  between-study variation; effect size; heterogeneity; power; sample size; statistical significance

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 26186112     DOI: 10.1177/1745691614548513

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci        ISSN: 1745-6916


  11 in total

1.  Implicit happiness and sadness are associated with ease and difficulty: evidence from sequential priming.

Authors:  Ruta Lasauskaite; Guido H E Gendolla; Mylène Bolmont; Laure Freydefont
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2015-12-15

2.  Multilevel Multivariate Meta-analysis with Application to Choice Overload.

Authors:  Blakeley B McShane; Ulf Böckenholt
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2017-05-19       Impact factor: 2.500

3.  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

4.  Sample size, statistical power, and false conclusions in infant looking-time research.

Authors:  Lisa M Oakes
Journal:  Infancy       Date:  2014-04-05

5.  Heterogeneity estimates in a biased world.

Authors:  Johannes Hönekopp; Audrey Helen Linden
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution.

Authors:  Christopher J Bryan; Elizabeth Tipton; David S Yeager
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2021-07-22

7.  Measuring the Prevalence of Problematic Respondent Behaviors among MTurk, Campus, and Community Participants.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Necka; Stephanie Cacioppo; Greg J Norman; John T Cacioppo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-06-28       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Replicator degrees of freedom allow publication of misleading failures to replicate.

Authors:  Christopher J Bryan; David S Yeager; Joseph M O'Brien
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-11-25       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  Statistical Significance Filtering Overestimates Effects and Impedes Falsification: A Critique of.

Authors:  Jonathan Z Bakdash; Laura R Marusich; Jared B Kenworthy; Elyssa Twedt; Erin G Zaroukian
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2020-12-22

10.  A case against default effect sizes in sport and exercise science.

Authors:  Aaron Caldwell; Andrew D Vigotsky
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2020-11-03       Impact factor: 2.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.