University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2024 Aug;28(3):276-301. doi: 10.1177/10888683241228328. Epub 2024 Feb 12.
In the wake of the replication crisis, social and personality psychologists have increased attention to power analysis and the adequacy of sample sizes. In this article, we analyze current controversies in this area, including choosing effect sizes, why and whether power analyses should be conducted on already-collected data, how to mitigate the negative effects of sample size criteria on specific kinds of research, and which power criterion to use. For novel research questions, we advocate that researchers base sample sizes on effects that are likely to be cost-effective for other people to implement (in applied settings) or to study (in basic research settings), given the limitations of interest-based minimums or field-wide effect sizes. We discuss two alternatives to power analysis, precision analysis and sequential analysis, and end with recommendations for improving the practices of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors in social-personality psychology.
Recently, social-personality psychology has been criticized for basing some of its conclusions on studies with low numbers of participants. As a result, power analysis, a mathematical way to ensure that a study has enough participants to reliably "detect" a given size of psychological effect, has become popular. This article describes power analysis and discusses some controversies about it, including how researchers should derive assumptions about effect size, and how the requirements of power analysis can be applied without harming research on hard-to-reach and marginalized communities. For novel research questions, we advocate that researchers base sample sizes on effects that are likely to be cost-effective for other people to implement (in applied settings) or to study (in basic research settings). We discuss two alternatives to power analysis, precision analysis and sequential analysis, and end with recommendations for improving the practices of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors in social-personality psychology.
在复制危机之后,社会和人格心理学家越来越关注功效分析和样本量的充分性。在本文中,我们分析了该领域当前的争议,包括选择效应量、为什么以及是否应该对已经收集的数据进行功效分析、如何减轻样本量标准对特定类型研究的负面影响,以及使用哪种功效标准。对于新的研究问题,我们主张研究人员根据可能对其他人实施(在应用环境中)或研究(在基础研究环境中)具有成本效益的效应来确定样本量,这要考虑到基于利益的最小量或全领域效应量的局限性。我们讨论了两种替代功效分析的方法,即精度分析和序贯分析,并以提高社会人格心理学领域研究人员、评论员和期刊编辑实践的建议结束。
最近,社会人格心理学因其部分结论基于参与者人数较少的研究而受到批评。因此,功效分析(一种确保研究有足够参与者可靠地“检测”给定心理效应大小的数学方法)变得流行起来。本文描述了功效分析,并讨论了一些关于它的争议,包括研究人员如何得出关于效应量的假设,以及如何在不损害对难以接触和边缘化群体的研究的情况下应用功效分析的要求。对于新的研究问题,我们主张研究人员根据可能对其他人实施(在应用环境中)或研究(在基础研究环境中)具有成本效益的效应来确定样本量。我们讨论了两种替代功效分析的方法,即精度分析和序贯分析,并以提高社会人格心理学领域研究人员、评论员和期刊编辑实践的建议结束。