Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The case against retrospective statistical power analyses with an introduction to power analysis

  • Commentary
  • Published:
acta ethologica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Berger RL, Hsu JC (1996) Bioequivalence trials, intention-union tests and equivalence confidence sets. Stat Sci 11:283–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carver RP (1978) The case against statistical significance testing. Harv Educ Rev 48:378–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Chow SL (1988) Significance test or effect size? Psychol Bull 103:105–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1962) The statistical power of abnormal social psychological research: a review. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 65:145–153

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1990) Things I have learned (so far). Am Psychol 45:1304–1312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1992) Statistical power analysis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 1:98–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1994) The earth is round (P<0.05). Am Psychol 49:997–1003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colegrave N, Ruxton GD (2003) Confidence intervals are a more useful complement to nonsignificant tests then are power calculations. Behav Ecol 14:446–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayton PK (1998) Reversal of the burden of proof in fisheries management. Science 279:821–822

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather PG (1991) Statistical power and design requirements for environmental monitoring. Aust J Mar Freshwater Res 42:555–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RA (1935) The design of experiments. Hafner, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleiss JL (1994) Measures of effect size for categorical data. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV (eds) The handbook of research synthesis. Sage, New York, pp 245–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Frick RW (1995) Accepting the null hypothesis. Mem Cognit 23:132–138

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gerard PD, Smith DR, Weerkkody G (1998) Limits of retrospective power analysis. J Wildl Manage 62:801–807

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass GV (1977) Integrating findings: the meta-analysis of research. In: Shulman L (ed) Review of research in education, vol 5. Peacock, Itasca, pp 351–379

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman SN, Berklin JA (1994) The use of predicted confidence intervals when planning experiments and the misuse of power when interpreting results. Ann Intern Med 121:200–206

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes JP, Steidl RJ (1997) Statistical power analysis and amphibian population trends. Conser Biol 11:273–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedges LV (1981) Distributional theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. J Educ Stat 6:107–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedges L, Olkin I (1985) Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoenig JM, Heisey DM (2001) The abuse of power: the pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. Am Stat 55:19–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter JE, Schmidt FL (1990) Methods of meta-analysis: correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennions MD, Møller AP (2003) A survey of the statistical power of research in behavioral ecology and animal behavior. Behav Ecol 14:438–445

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk RE (1996) Practical significance: a concept whose time has come. Educ Psychol Meas 56:746–759

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey MW, Wilson DB (2000) Practical meta-analysis. Sage, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • Maddocks SA, Bennett ATD, Hunt S, Cuthill IC (2001) Context-dependent visual preferences in starlings and blue tits: mate choice and light environment. Anim Behav 63:69–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakagawa S (2004) A farewell to Bonferroni: the problems of low statistical power and publication bias. Behav Ecol (doi: 10.1093/heheco/arh107) (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson RS (2000) Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychol Methods 5:241–301

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parkhurst DF (2001) Statistical significance tests: equivalence and reverse tests should reduce misinterpretation. BioScience 51:1051–1057

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlman M, Wu L (1999) The emperor’s new tests. Stat Sci 14:355–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal R (1993) Cumulating evidence. In: Keren G, Lewis C (eds) A handbook for data analysis in the behavioral sciences: methodological issues. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 519–559

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal R (1994) Parametric measures of effect size. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV (eds) The handbook of research synthesis. Sage, New York, pp 231–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Sedlmeier P, Gigerenzer G (1989) Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies. Psychol Bull 105:309–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steidl RJ, Thomas L (2001) Power analysis and experimental design. In: Scheiner SM, Gurevitch J (eds) Design and analysis of ecological experiments, 2 edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 14–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Still AW (1992) On the number of subjects used in animal behaviour experiments. Anim Behav 30:873–880

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoehr AM (1999) Are significance threshold appropriate for the study of animal behaviour? Anim Behav 57:F22–F25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas L (1997) Retrospective power analysis. Conser Biol 11:276–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas RJ, Cuthill IC (2002) Body mass regulation and the daily singing routines of European robins. Anim Behav 63:285–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson B (2002) What future quantitative social science research could look like: confidence intervals for effect sizes. Educ Res 31:25–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson CF, Neill AJ (1991) House wrens do not prefer clean nestboxes. Anim Behav 42:1022–1024

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge James McEwan, Richard Etheredge, Catherine Sumpter, Jens Rolff, and an anonymous referee for comments that have improved the manuscript. S. Nakagawa is supported by Foundation for Research Science and Foundation, New Zealand.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Alfred Denny Building, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TN, UK

    Shinichi Nakagawa

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Waikato, Private Bag 3105, Hamilton, New Zealand

    T. Mary Foster

Authors
  1. Shinichi Nakagawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Mary Foster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shinichi Nakagawa.

Additional information

Communicated by P. Gama Mota

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nakagawa, S., Foster, T.M. The case against retrospective statistical power analyses with an introduction to power analysis. acta ethol 7, 103–108 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-004-0095-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-004-0095-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation