Researchers’ Intuitions About Power in Psychological Research

Open Access
Authors
Publication date 2016
Journal Psychological Science
Volume | Issue number 27 | 8
Pages (from-to) 1069-1077
Organisations
  • Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences (FMG) - Psychology Research Institute (PsyRes)
  • Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences (FMG)
Abstract

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.

Document type Article
Language English
Published at https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616647519
Other links https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84981294421
Downloads
Permalink to this page
Back