Abstract
When uncertain about the magnitude of an effect, researchers commonly substitute in the standard sample-size-determination formula an estimate of effect size derived from a previous experiment. A problem with this approach is that the traditional sample-size-determination formula was not designed to deal with the uncertainty inherent in an effect-size estimate. Consequently, estimate-substitution in the traditional sample-size-determination formula can lead to a substantial loss of power. A method of sample-size determination designed to handle uncertainty in effect-size estimates is described. The procedure uses thet value and sample size from a previous study, which might be a pilot study or a related study in the same area, to establish a distribution of probable effect sizes. The sample size to be employed in the new study is that which supplies an expected power of the desired amount over the distribution of probable effect sizes. A FORTRAN 77 program is presented that permits swift calculation of sample size for a variety oft tests, including independentt tests, relatedt tests,t tests of correlation coefficients, andt tests of multiple regressionb coefficients.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
Gatsonis, C., &Sampson, A. R. (1989). Multiple correlation: Exact power and sample size calculations.Psychological Bulletin,106, 516–524.
Gillett, R. (1986). Sample size determination in replication attempts: The standard normalz test.British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psycholog y,39, 190–207.
Gillett, R. (1991). A FORTRAN 77 program for sample-size determination in replication attempts when effect size is uncertain.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,23, 442–446.
Gillett, R. (1994). An average power criterion for sample size estimation.The Statistician,43, 389–394.
Gillett, R. (1995). The expected power ofF andt tests conditional on information from an earlier study.British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology,48, 371–384.
Haase, R. F., Waechter, D. M., &Solomon, G. S. (1982). How significant is a significant difference? Average effect size of research in counseling psychology.Journal of Counseling Psycholog y,29, 58–65.
Hedges, L. V. (1984). Estimation of effect size under nonrandom sampling: The effect of censoring studies yielding insignificant mean differences.Journal of Educational Statistics,9, 61–85.
Kraemer, H. C., &Thiemann, S. (1987).How Many Subjects? Statistical Power Analysis in Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lane, D. M., &Dunlap, W. P. (1978). Estimating effect size: Bias resulting from the significance criterion in editorial decisions.British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology,31, 107–112.
Murphy, K. R., &Myors, B. (1998).Statistical power analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., &Flannery, B. P. (1992).Numerical recipes in FORTRAN: The art of scientific computing (2nd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
StatLib Applied Statistics Algorithms(1999) [On-line]. Available: http://lib.stat.cmu.edu/apstat.
Wahlsten, D. (1991). Sample size to detect a planned contrast and a one degree-of-freedom interaction effect.Psychological Bulletin,110, 587–595.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article was written during a period of study leave granted by the University of Leicester.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gillett, R. Sample size determination for at test given at value from a previous study: A FORTRAN 77 program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 33, 544–548 (2001). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195414
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195414