Alpha Values as a Function of Sample Size,Effect Size,and Power: Accuracy over Inference

Abstract

Tables of alpha values as a function of sample size, effect size, and desired power were presented. The tables indicated expected alphas for small, medium, and large effect sizes given a variety of sample sizes. It was evident that sample sizes for most psychological studies are adequate for large effect sizes defined at .8. The typical alpha level of .05 and desired power of 90% can be achieved with 70 participants in two groups. It was perhaps doubtful if these ideal levels of alpha and power have generally been achieved for medium effect sizes in actual research, since 170 participants would be required. Small effect sizes have rarely been tested with an adequate number of participants or power. Implications were discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Begg

C. B.

(1994) Publication bias. In Cooper

Hedges

L. V.

(Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Pp. 400–409.

Bradley

M. T.

Gupta

R. D.

(1997) Estimating the effect of the file drawer problem in meta-analysis. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 85, 719–722.

Brand

Bradley

M. T.

Best

Stoica

(2008) Accuracy of effect size estimates from published psychological research. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 106, 645–649.

Brand

Bradley

M. T.

Best

Stoica

(2011) Multiple trials may yield exaggerated effect size estimates. Journal of General Psychology, 138(1), 1–11.

Christensen

(2005) Testing Fisher, Neyman, Pearson and Bayes. American Statistical Association, 59, 121–126.

Cohen

(1962) Statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: a review. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 65, 145–153.

Cohen

(1977) Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press.

Cohen

(1994) The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49(12), 997–1003.

Fisher

R. A.

(1973) Statistical methods and scientific inference. (3rd ed.) New York Hafner Press.

10.

Gigerenzer

(1993) The superego, the ego, and the id in statistical reasoning. In Keren

Lewis

(Eds.), A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: methodological issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 311–339.

11.

Ioannidis

J. P. A.

(2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e 124. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.

12.

Kraemer

H. C.

Theimann

(1987) How many subjects? Statistical power analysis in research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

13.

Lipsey

Wilson

D. B.

(1993) The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48, 1181–1209.

14.

Maddock

J. E.

Rossi

J. S.

(2001) Statistical power of articles published in three health psychology-related journals. Health Psychology, 20, 76–78.

15.

Marszalek

J. M.

Barber

Kohlhart

Holmes

C. B.

(2011) Sample size in psychological research over the past 30 years. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 112, 331–348.

16.

Maxwell

S. E.

(2004) The persistence of underpowered studies in psychological research: causes, consequences, and remedies. Psychological Methods, 9, 147–163.

17.

Nickerson

R. S.

(2000) Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 241–301.

18.

Richard

F. D.

Bond

C. F.

Jr. Stokes-Zoota

J. J.

(2003) One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331–363.

19.

Sterling

T. D.

(1959) Publication decisions and their possible effects on inferences drawn from tests on significance or vice versa. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54, 10–34.

20.

Wilkinson

, & Task Force on Statistical Inference American Psychological Association, Science Directorate. (1999) Statistical methods in psychology journals: guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54(8), 594–604.