Skip to main content
Log in

Statistical Guideline No. 5. Include Results of a Power Analysis; if a Power Analysis Was Not Performed, Describe the Stopping Rule for Recruitment

  • Integrative Review
  • Published:
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This is one in a series of statistical guidelines designed to highlight common statistical considerations in behavioral medicine research. The goal is to briefly discuss appropriate ways to analyze and present data in the International Journal of Behavioral Medicine (IJBM). Collectively the series will culminate in a set of basic statistical guidelines to be adopted by IJBM and integrated into the journal’s official Instructions for Authors, and also to serve as an independent resource. If you have ideas for a future topic, please email the Statistical Editor, Suzanne Segerstrom at segerstrom@uky.edu.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:155–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Szucs D, Ioannidis JPA. Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature. PLoS Biol. 2017;15:e2000797.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Gelman A, Carlin J. Beyond power calculations: assessing type S (sign) and type M (magnitude) errors. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2014;9:641–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Segerstrom SC. Between the error bars: how modern theory, design, and methodology enrich the personality-health tradition. Psychosom Med. 2019;81:408–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. 2011;22:1359–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hoenig JM, Heisey DM. The abuse of power: the pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. Am Stat. 2001;55:19–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cumming G. The new statistics: why and how. Psychol Sci. 2014;25:7–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Benjamin DJ, Berger JO, Johannesson M, Nosek BA, Wagenmakers EJ, Berk R, et al. Redefine statistical significance. Nat Hum Behav. 2018;2:6–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lakens D, Adolfi FG, Albers CJ, Anvari F, Apps MA, Argamon SE, et al. Justify your alpha. Nat Hum Behav. 2018;2:168–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suzanne C. Segerstrom.

Ethics declarations

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author, and so there was no requirement for informed consent.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Segerstrom, S.C. Statistical Guideline No. 5. Include Results of a Power Analysis; if a Power Analysis Was Not Performed, Describe the Stopping Rule for Recruitment. Int.J. Behav. Med. 27, 140–141 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-020-09868-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-020-09868-7

Keywords

Navigation