Behavior Genetics

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 147–158 | Cite as

A Note on the Statistical Power in Extended Twin Designs

  • Daniëlle Posthuma
  • Dorret I. Boomsma


The power to detect sources of genetic and environmental variance varies with sample size, study design, effect size and the statistical significance level chosen. We explored whether the power of the classical twin study may be increased by adding non-twin siblings to the classical twin design. Sample sizes to detect genetic and shared environmental variation were compared for kinships with only twins, kinships consisting of twins and one additional sibling, and kinships with twins and two additional siblings. The effect of adding siblings to the classical twin design was considered for univariate and bivariate analyses. For the univariate case, adding one non-twin sibling resulted in a decrease in sample size needed to detect additive genetic influences in the presence of environmental influences. However, adding two additional siblings did not decrease the number of subjects as compared to the classical twin design. The sample size required to detect common environmental factors was also greatly decreased by adding one non-twin sibling. Adding two non-twin siblings resulted in a small additional decrease. In models including additive genetic, dominant genetic, and unique environmental effects, adding one sibling to a twin family decreased the required sample size to detect dominant genetic influences. Adding two siblings to a twin family resulted in only a slight additional decrease in sample size. In the bivariate case a similar pattern of results was found, in addition to the observation that the overall required sample size, as expected, was lower than in the univariate case. The decrease in sample size from bivariate testing was more pronounced in a design with one or two additional siblings, as compared to a design with twins only. It is concluded that a well considered choice of family design, i.e. including families with twins and one or two additional siblings increases the statistical power to detect sources of variance due to additive and non-additive genetic influences, and common environment.

Sample size heritability methodology sibship size twin study 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Boomsma, D. I. Current status and future prospects in twin studies of the development of cognitive abilities: Infancy to old age. In: Bouchard, Thomas J. Jr. (Ed), Propping, Peter (Ed), et al. (1993). Twins as a tool of behavioral genetics.Life sciences research report, 53. (pp. 67–82). Chichester, England UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  2. Boomsma, D. I. & Dolan, C. V. (1998). A comparison of power to detect a QTL in sib-pair data using multivariate phenotypes, mean phenotypes, and factor scores. Behavior Genetics, 28:329–340.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, J. (1992) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112:155–159.Google Scholar
  4. Dolan, C. V., Boomsma, D. I., & Neale, M. C. (1999). A note on the power provided by sibships of size 2, 3, and 4 in genetic covariance modeling of a codominant QTL. In press Google Scholar
  5. Fulker, D. W., Cherny, S. S., Cardon, L. R. (1995). Multipoint interval mapping of Quantitative Trait Loci, using sib pairs. Am J Hum Genet, 56(5):1224–1233PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Fulker, D. W., Cherny, S. S., Sham, P. C., et al.(1999). Combined linkage and association. Sib-pair analysis for quantitative traits. Am J Hum Genet, 64(1):259–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hewitt, J. K., & Heath, A. C. (1988). A note on computing the chisquare noncentrality parameter for power analyses. Behavior Genetics, 18:105–108.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Martin, N. G., Eaves, L. J., Kearsey, M. J., and Davies, P. (1978). The power of the classical twin study. Heredity, 40:97–116.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Nance, W. E., & Neale, M. C. (1989). Partitioned twin analyses: a power study. Behavior Genetics, 19:143–150.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Neale, M. C. (1997). Mx: Statistical modeling. 3rd edition Box 980126 MCV, Richmond VA 23298.Google Scholar
  11. Neale, M. C., & Cardon L. R.(1992) Methodology for Genetic Studies of Twins and Families. NATO Asi Series. Series D,Behavioural and Social Sciences, Vol 67.Google Scholar
  12. Pickens, R. W., Svikis, D. S., McGue, M., Lykken, D. T. et al. (1991). Heterogeneity in the inheritance of alcoholism: A study of male and female twins. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48:19–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., & McClearn, G. E. (1990) Behavioral Genetics. A primer. New York: Freeman and company.Google Scholar
  14. Schmitz, S. Cherny, S. S., & Fulker, D. W. (1998). Increase in power through multivariate analyses. Behavior Genetics, 28:357–364.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Schork, N. J., (1993). Extended multipoint identity-by-descent analysis of human quantitative traits: efficiency, power, and modeling considerations. American Journal of Human Genetics, 53:1306–1319.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Svikis, D. S., Velez, M. L., Pickens, R. W. (1994). Genetic aspects of alcohol use and alcoholism in women. Alcohol Health & Research World, 18:192–196.Google Scholar
  17. Tanaka, J. S. (1987). How big is big enough?: sample size and goodness of fit in structural equation models with laten variables. Child Development, 58:134–146.Google Scholar
  18. van der Valk, J. C., Verhulst, F. C., Neale, M. C., Boomsma, D. I. (1998). Longitudinal genetic analysis of problem behaviors in biologically related and unrelated adoptees. Behavior Genetics, 28:365–380.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniëlle Posthuma
    • 1
  • Dorret I. Boomsma
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Biological PsychologyVrije Universiteit AmsterdamNetherlands
  2. 2.Department of Biological PsychologyVrije Universiteit AmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations