80% Power? Really?

[From the blog “The “80% power” lie” posted by Andrew Gelman in December 2017 at Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science]
“Suppose we really were running studies with 80% power. In that case, the expected z-score is 2.8, and 95% of the time we’d see z-scores between 0.8 and 4.8. Let’s open up the R:”
“> 2*pnorm(-0.8)  [1] 0.42”
“> 2*pnorm(-4.8)  [1] 1.6e-06”
“So we should expect to routinely see p-values ranging from 0.42 to . . . ummmm, 0.0000016. And those would be clean, pre-registered p-values, no funny business, no researcher degrees of freedom, no forking paths.”
“Let’s explore further . . . the 75th percentile of the normal distribution is 0.67, so if we’re really running studies with 80% power, then one-quarter of the time we’d see z-scores above 2.8 + 0.67 = 3.47.”
“> 2*pnorm(-3.47)  [1] 0.00052″
“Dayum. We’d expect to see clean, un-hacked p-values less than 0.0005, at least a quarter of the time, if we were running studies with minimum 80% power, as we routinely claim we’re doing, if we ever want any of that sweet, sweet NIH funding. And, yes, that’s 0.0005, not 0.005. There’s a bunch of zeroes there.”
“And, no, this ain’t happening. We don’t have 80% power. Heck, we’re lucky if we have 6% power.”
To read more, click here.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: