Cargando…
Researchers’ Intuitions About Power in Psychological Research
Many psychology studies are statistically underpowered. In part, this may be because many researchers rely on intuition, rules of thumb, and prior practice (along with practical considerations) to determine the number of subjects to test. In Study 1, we surveyed 291 published research psychologists...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4976648/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27354203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797616647519 |
_version_ | 1782446906546323456 |
---|---|
author | Bakker, Marjan Hartgerink, Chris H. J. Wicherts, Jelte M. van der Maas, Han L. J. |
author_facet | Bakker, Marjan Hartgerink, Chris H. J. Wicherts, Jelte M. van der Maas, Han L. J. |
author_sort | Bakker, Marjan |
collection | PubMed |
description | Many psychology studies are statistically underpowered. In part, this may be because many researchers rely on intuition, rules of thumb, and prior practice (along with practical considerations) to determine the number of subjects to test. In Study 1, we surveyed 291 published research psychologists and found large discrepancies between their reports of their preferred amount of power and the actual power of their studies (calculated from their reported typical cell size, typical effect size, and acceptable alpha). Furthermore, in Study 2, 89% of the 214 respondents overestimated the power of specific research designs with a small expected effect size, and 95% underestimated the sample size needed to obtain .80 power for detecting a small effect. Neither researchers’ experience nor their knowledge predicted the bias in their self-reported power intuitions. Because many respondents reported that they based their sample sizes on rules of thumb or common practice in the field, we recommend that researchers conduct and report formal power analyses for their studies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4976648 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49766482016-08-17 Researchers’ Intuitions About Power in Psychological Research Bakker, Marjan Hartgerink, Chris H. J. Wicherts, Jelte M. van der Maas, Han L. J. Psychol Sci Research Articles Many psychology studies are statistically underpowered. In part, this may be because many researchers rely on intuition, rules of thumb, and prior practice (along with practical considerations) to determine the number of subjects to test. In Study 1, we surveyed 291 published research psychologists and found large discrepancies between their reports of their preferred amount of power and the actual power of their studies (calculated from their reported typical cell size, typical effect size, and acceptable alpha). Furthermore, in Study 2, 89% of the 214 respondents overestimated the power of specific research designs with a small expected effect size, and 95% underestimated the sample size needed to obtain .80 power for detecting a small effect. Neither researchers’ experience nor their knowledge predicted the bias in their self-reported power intuitions. Because many respondents reported that they based their sample sizes on rules of thumb or common practice in the field, we recommend that researchers conduct and report formal power analyses for their studies. SAGE Publications 2016-07-20 2016-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4976648/ /pubmed/27354203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797616647519 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Research Articles Bakker, Marjan Hartgerink, Chris H. J. Wicherts, Jelte M. van der Maas, Han L. J. Researchers’ Intuitions About Power in Psychological Research |
title | Researchers’ Intuitions About Power in Psychological
Research |
title_full | Researchers’ Intuitions About Power in Psychological
Research |
title_fullStr | Researchers’ Intuitions About Power in Psychological
Research |
title_full_unstemmed | Researchers’ Intuitions About Power in Psychological
Research |
title_short | Researchers’ Intuitions About Power in Psychological
Research |
title_sort | researchers’ intuitions about power in psychological
research |
topic | Research Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4976648/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27354203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797616647519 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bakkermarjan researchersintuitionsaboutpowerinpsychologicalresearch AT hartgerinkchrishj researchersintuitionsaboutpowerinpsychologicalresearch AT wichertsjeltem researchersintuitionsaboutpowerinpsychologicalresearch AT vandermaashanlj researchersintuitionsaboutpowerinpsychologicalresearch |