A Multi-faceted Mess: A Review of Statistical Power Analysis in Psychology Journal Articles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many bodies recommend that a sample planning procedure, such as traditional NHST a priori power analysis, is conducted during the planning stages of a study. Power analysis allows the researcher to estimate how many participants are required in order to detect a minimally meaningful effect size at a specific level of power and Type I error rate. However, there are several drawbacks to the procedure that render it “a mess.” Specifically, the identification of the minimally meaningful effect size is very challenging, the procedure is not precision oriented, and does not guide the researcher to collect as many participants as feasibly possible. In this study, we explore how these three theoretical issues are reflected in applied psychological research in order to better understand whether these issues are concerns in practice. To investigate how power analysis is currently used, this study reviewed the reporting of 443 power analyses in high impact Psychology journals in 2016 and 2017 using Google Scholar. It was found that researchers rarely use the minimally meaningful effect size as a rationale for the chosen effect in a power analysis. Further, precision-based approaches and collecting the maximum sample size feasible are almost never used in tandem with power analyses. In light of these findings, we offer that researchers should focus on tools beyond traditional power analysis when sample planning, such as collecting the maximum sample size feasible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.171 | 0.465 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".