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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bakker, Marjan, Hartgerink, Chris H. J., Wicherts, Jelte M., van der Maas, Han L. J.
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