Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

29-10-2021 | Special Section: Reducing Research Waste in (Health-Related) Quality of Life Research

Power(ful) myths: misconceptions regarding sample size in quality of life research

Auteur: Samantha F. Anderson

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 10/2022

Abstract

Purpose

Carefully selecting the sample size for a research study is one of the most fundamental ways to utilize resources in an ethical manner, maximize impact and replicability, and minimize research waste when investigating questions relevant to health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Despite an increased focus on sample size in the methodological literature, the topic has received limited attention in the HRQOL field, and there are still misconceptions that can weaken even well-intentioned sample size planning. This article aims to highlight common misconceptions, provide accessible and non-technical corrections to these misconceptions, and show how HRQOL researchers can benefit from a more nuanced understanding of sample size planning.

Method

Misconceptions were identified broadly through examples within the health, psychology, and HRQOL literatures. In examining these misconceptions, study-level (e.g., missing data, multilevel designs, multiple reported outcomes) and field-level (e.g., publication bias, replicability) issues relevant to HRQOL research were considered.

Results

Misconceptions include: (a) researchers should use rules of thumb or the largest sample size possible, (b) sample size planning should always focus on power, (c) planned power = actual power, (d) there is only one level of power per study, and (e) power is only relevant for the individual researcher. Throughout the article, major themes linked to these misconceptions are mapped onto recent HRQOL studies to make the connections more tangible.

Conclusion

By clarifying several challenges and misconceptions regarding sample size planning and statistical power, HRQOL researchers will have the tools needed to augment the research literature in effective and meaningful ways.

vorige artikel Improving the patient-reported outcome sections of clinical trial protocols: a mixed methods evaluation of educational workshops

volgende artikel Reducing waste in collection of quality-of-life data through better reporting: a case study

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Collins, F. S., & Tabak, L. A. (2014). NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature, 505(7485), 612–613.CrossRef

Prinz, F., Schlange, T., & Asadullah, K. (2011). Believe it or not: How much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 10(9), 712–712. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3439-c1CrossRefPubMed

Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716CrossRef

Freedman, L. P., Cockburn, I. M., & Simcoe, T. S. (2015). The economics of reproducibility in preclinical research. PLOS Biology, 13(6), e1002165. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

John, L. K., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953CrossRefPubMed

Dickersin, K., & Chalmers, I. (2011). Recognizing, investigating and dealing with incomplete and biased reporting of clinical research: From Francis Bacon to the WHO. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104(12), 532–538. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2011.11k042CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). Some main problems eroding the credibility and relevance of randomized trials. Bulletin of the NYU hospital for joint diseases, 66(2), 135–139.PubMed

Cook, J. A., Julious, S. A., Sones, W., Hampson, L. V., Hewitt, C., Berlin, J. A., & Vale, L. D. (2018). DELTA2 guidance on choosing the target difference and undertaking and reporting the sample size calculation for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 363, k3750. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3750CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Calvert, M., King, M., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Aiyegbusi, O., Kyte, D., Slade, A., & Wenzel, L. (2021). SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials. British Medical Journal Open, 11(6), e045105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045105CrossRef

10.

Walters, S. J. (2004). Sample size and power estimation for studies with health related quality of life outcomes: A comparison of four methods using the SF-36. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-2-26CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Walters, S., Campbell, M., & Paisley, S. (2001). Methods for determining sample sizes for studies involving health-related quality of life measures: a tutorial. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 2, 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020102612073CrossRef

12.

Turner, R. M., Bird, S. M., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2013). The impact of study size on meta-analyses: examination of underpowered studies in cochrane reviews. PLoS ONE, 8(3), e59202. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0059202CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Wainer, H. (2007). The most dangerous equation. American Scientist - AMER SC, I, 95. https://doi.org/10.1511/2007.65.249CrossRef

14.

Anderson, S. F., & Maxwell, S. E. (2017). Addressing the “Replication Crisis”: Using original studies to design replication studies with appropriate statistical power. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52(3), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2017.1289361CrossRefPubMed

15.

Anderson, S. F., Kelley, K., & Maxwell, S. E. (2017). Sample-size planning for more accurate statistical power: a method adjusting sample effect sizes for publication bias and uncertainty. Psychological Science, 28(11), 1547–1562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617723724CrossRefPubMed

16.

Kelley, K., Darku, F. B., & Chattopadhyay, B. (2018). Accuracy in parameter estimation for a general class of effect sizes: A sequential approach. Psychological Methods, 23(2), 226–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000127CrossRefPubMed

17.

Lai, T. L., Lavori, P. W., & Shih, M.-C. (2012). Sequential design of phase II–III cancer trials. Statistics in Medicine, 31(18), 1944–1960. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5346CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Kelley, K., & Preacher, K. J. (2012). On effect size. Psychological Methods, 17(2), 137–152.CrossRef

19.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146CrossRefPubMed

20.

Hoenig, J. M., & Heisey, D. M. (2001). The abuse of power. The American Statistician, 55(1), 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1198/000313001300339897CrossRef

21.

Yuan, K.-H., & Maxwell, S. (2005). On the post hoc power in testing mean differences. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 30(2), 141–167. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986030002141CrossRef

22.

Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., & Costantini, G. (2018). A practical primer to power analysis for simple experimental designs. International Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.181CrossRef

23.

McNeish, D., & Stapleton, L. M. (2016). Modeling clustered data with very few clusters. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(4), 495–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2016.1167008CrossRefPubMed

24.

McNeish, D. (2017). Small sample methods for multilevel modeling: A colloquial elucidation of REML and the Kenward-Roger correction. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 52(5), 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2017.1344538CrossRefPubMed

25.

Hedeker, D., Gibbons, R. D., & Waternaux, C. (1999). Sample size estimation for longitudinal designs with attrition: Comparing time-related contrasts between two groups. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24(1), 70–93. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986024001070CrossRef

26.

Hoyle, R. H., & Gottfredson, N. C. (2015). Sample size considerations in prevention research applications of multilevel modeling and structural equation modeling. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 16(7), 987–996. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0489-8CrossRef

27.

Kelcey, B., Spybrook, J., & Dong, N. (2019). Sample size planning for cluster-randomized interventions probing multilevel mediation. Prevention Science, 20(3), 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0921-6CrossRefPubMed

28.

Kelley, K., & Rausch, J. R. (2011). Sample size planning for longitudinal models: Accuracy in parameter estimation for polynomial change parameters. Psychological Methods, 16(4), 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023352CrossRefPubMed

29.

Wang, Y., Hsu, H.-Y., & Kim, E. (2021). Investigating the impact of covariate inclusion on sample size requirements of factor mixture modeling: A monte carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2021.1910036CrossRef

30.

Koran, J. (2016). Preliminary proactive sample size determination for confirmatory factor analysis models. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 49(4), 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175616664012CrossRef

31.

Lai, K., & Kelley, K. (2011). Accuracy in parameter estimation for targeted effects in structural equation modeling: Sample size planning for narrow confidence intervals. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 127–148. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021764CrossRefPubMed

32.

Kelley, K., & Rausch, J. R. (2006). Sample size planning for the standardized mean difference: Accuracy in parameter estimation via narrow confidence intervals. Psychological Methods, 11(4), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.363CrossRefPubMed

33.

Anderson, S. F. (in press). Using prior information to plan appropriately powered regression studies: A tutorial using BUCSS. Psychological Methods, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000366

34.

Kelley, K., & Maxwell, S. E. (2003). Sample size for multiple regression: Obtaining regression coefficients that are accurate, not simply significant. Psychological Methods, 8(3), 305–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.3.305CrossRefPubMed

35.

Maxwell, S. E. (2000). Sample size and multiple regression analysis. Psychological Methods, 5(4), 434–458. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.5.4.434CrossRefPubMed

36.

Bonett, D. G. (2003). Sample size requirements for comparing two alpha coefficients. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(1), 72–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621602239477CrossRef

37.

Bonett, D. G. (2002). Sample size requirements for testing and estimating coefficient alpha. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 27(4), 335–340. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986027004335CrossRef

38.

Terry, L., & Kelley, K. (2012). Sample size planning for composite reliability coefficients: Accuracy in parameter estimation via narrow confidence intervals. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 65(3), 371–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.2011.02030.xCrossRefPubMed

39.

Feldt, L. S., & Ankenmann, R. D. (1999). Determining sample size for a test of the equality of alpha coefficients when the number of part-tests is small. Psychological Methods, 4(4), 366–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.4.366CrossRef

40.

Shieh, G. (2014). Sample size requirements for the design of reliability studies: Precision consideration. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 808–822. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0415-1CrossRefPubMed

41.

Shieh, G. (2014). Optimal sample sizes for the design of reliability studies: Power consideration. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 772–785. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0396-0CrossRefPubMed

42.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84CrossRef

43.

Trattner, M. H., & O’Leary, B. S. (1980). Sample sizes for specified statistical power in testing for differential validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65(2), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.2.127CrossRef

44.

Algina, J., & Keselman, H. J. (2008). Population validity and cross-validity: Applications of distribution theory for testing hypotheses, setting confidence intervals, and determining sample size. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(2), 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164407305589CrossRef

45.

Charter, R. A. (1999). Sample size requirements for precise estimates of reliability, generalizability, and validity coefficients. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 21(4), 559–566. https://doi.org/10.1076/jcen.21.4.559.889CrossRefPubMed

46.

Cook, K. F., Taylor, P. W., Dodd, B. G., Teal, C. R., & McHorney, C. A. (2007). Evidence-based practice for equating health status items: Sample size and IRT model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 8(2), 175–189.PubMed

47.

Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26(3), 499–510. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2603_7CrossRefPubMed

48.

Bakker, M., Hartgerink, C. H. J., Wicherts, J. M., & van der Maas, H. L. J. (2016). Researchers’ intuitions about power in psychological research. Psychological Science, 27(8), 1069–1077.CrossRef

49.

Dumas-Mallet, E., Button, K. S., Boraud, T., Gonon, F., & Munafò, M. R. (2017). Low statistical power in biomedical science: A review of three human research domains. Royal Society Open Science, 4(2), 160254. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160254CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Szucs, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2017). Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature. PLoS Biology. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000797CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin Company.

52.

Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D., & Grady, C. (2000). What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA, 283(20), 2701–2711. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.20.2701CrossRefPubMed

53.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Inc.CrossRef

54.

Maxwell, S. E., & Kelley, K. (2011). Ethics and sample size planning. In A. T. Panter & S. K. Sterba (Eds.), Handbook of Ethics in Quantitative Methodology (pp. 159–184). Taylor & Francis.

55.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects research. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html.

56.

Bacchetti, P., McCulloch, C., & Segal, M. R. (2012). Being ‘underpowered’ does not make a study unethical. Statistics in Medicine, 31(29), 4138–4139. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5451CrossRefPubMed

57.

Kaplan, R. M., Chambers, D. A., & Glasgow, R. E. (2014). Big data and large sample size: A cautionary note on the potential for bias. Clinical and Translational Science, 7(4), 342–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.12178CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

58.

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research & Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. (1998). E9 statistical principles for clinical trials (No. FDA-1997-D-0508). Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/e9-statistical-principles-clinical-trials.

59.

Maxwell, S. E., Kelley, K., & Rausch, J. R. (2008). Sample size planning for statistical power and accuracy in parameter estimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 537–563. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093735CrossRefPubMed

60.

McShane, B. B., Gal, D., Gelman, A., Robert, C., & Tackett, J. L. (2019). Abandon statistical significance. The American Statistician, 73(sup1), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2018.1527253CrossRef

61.

Anderson, S. F. (2020). Misinterpreting p: The discrepancy between p values and the probability the null hypothesis is true, the influence of multiple testing, and implications for the replication crisis. Psychological Methods, 25(5), 596–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000248CrossRefPubMed

62.

Abelson, R. P. (1997). On the surprising longevity of flogged hotses: Why there is a case for the significance test. Psychological Science, 8(1), 12–15.CrossRef

63.

Tomioka, K., Shima, M., & Saeki, K. (2021). Mental component of health-related quality of life is an independent predictor of incident functional disability among community-dwelling older people: A prospective cohort study. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02780-xCrossRefPubMed

64.

Schwartz, C. E., Stark, R. B., Stucky, B. D., Li, Y., & Rapkin, B. D. (2021). Response-shift effects in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder: estimating response-shift-adjusted scores using equating. Quality of Life Research An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02727-8CrossRef

65.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Science (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

66.

Amit Aharon, A., Dubovi, I., & Ruban, A. (2021). Differences in mental health and health-related quality of life between the Israeli and Italian population during a COVID-19 quarantine. Quality of Life Research An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02746-5CrossRef

67.

Prichard, R. A., Zhao, F.-L., Mcdonagh, J., Goodall, S., Davidson, P. M., Newton, P. J., & Hayward, C. S. (2021). Discrepancies between proxy estimates and patient reported, health related, quality of life: Minding the gap between patient and clinician perceptions in heart failure. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 30(4), 1049–1059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02722-zCrossRef

68.

Jiroutek, M. R., Muller, K. E., Kupper, L. L., & Stewart, P. W. (2003). A new method for choosing sample size for confidence interval-based inferences. Biometrics, 59(3), 580–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-0420.00068CrossRefPubMed

69.

Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Sage Publications Inc.

70.

Lawrance, R., Degtyarev, E., Griffiths, P., Trask, P., Lau, H., D’Alessio, D., & Rufibach, K. (2020). What is an estimand & how does it relate to quantifying the effect of treatment on patient-reported quality of life outcomes in clinical trials? Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 4(1), 68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-00218-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

71.

Gibbs, N. M., & Weightman, W. M. (2016). The minimum clinically important difference is fundamentalto all clinical trials. European Journal of Anaesthesiology EJA, 33(1), 60.CrossRef

72.

Kelley, K., & Maxwell, S. E. (2012). Sample size. In H. Cooper (Ed.), APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 181–202). American Psychological Association.

73.

Lane, D. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (1978). Estimating effect size: Bias resulting from the significance criterion in editorial decisions. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 31(2), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1978.tb00578.xCrossRef

74.

Brown, A. W., Mehta, T. S., & Allison, D. B. (2017). Publication bias in science. The Oxford Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190497620.013.10CrossRef

75.

Dallow, N., & Fina, P. (2011). The perils with the misuse of predictive power. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10(4), 311–317. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.467CrossRefPubMed

76.

Hedges, L. V. (1984). Estimation of effect size under nonrandom sampling: the effects of censoring studies yielding statistically insignificant mean differences. Journal of Educational Statistics, 9(1), 61–85. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164832CrossRef

77.

Liu, X., & Wang, L. (2019). Sample size planning for detecting mediation effects: A power analysis procedure considering uncertainty in effect size estimates. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 54(6), 822–839. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2019.1593814CrossRefPubMed

78.

O’Brien, R. G., & Muller, K. E. (1993). 8 Unified Power Analysis for t-Tests through Multivariate Hypotheses. Applied Analysis of Variance in the Behavioral Sciences (pp. 297–344). Marcel Dekker.

79.

Perugini, M., Gallucci, M., & Costantini, G. (2014). Safeguard power as a protection against imprecise power estimates. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 9(3), 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614528519CrossRefPubMed

80.

Anderson, S. F., & Kelley, K. (2020). Bias-Uncertainty Corrected Sample Size. R Package.

81.

Schulz, K. F., & Grimes, D. A. (2005). Sample size calculations in randomised trials: Mandatory and mystical. Lancet (London, England), 365(9467), 1348–1353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)61034-3CrossRef

82.

Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 160–164.CrossRef

83.

Wyrwich, K. W. (2004). Minimal important difference thresholds and the standard error of measurement: Is there a connection? Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 14(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1081/BIP-120028508CrossRefPubMed

84.

Mouelhi, Y., Jouve, E., Castelli, C., & Gentile, S. (2020). How is the minimal clinically important difference established in health-related quality of life instruments? Review of anchors and methods. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 18(1), 136. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01344-wCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

85.

Siembida, E. J., Smith, A. W., Potosky, A. L., Graves, K. D., & Jensen, R. E. (2021). Examination of individual and multiple comorbid conditions and health-related quality of life in older cancer survivors. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 30(4), 1119–1129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02713-0CrossRef

86.

Timal, R. J., de Gucht, V., Rotmans, J. I., Hensen, L. C. R., Buiten, M. S., de Bie, M. K., & Jukema, J. W. (2021). The impact of transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation on quality of life, depression and optimism in dialysis patients report on the secondary outcome of QOL in the randomized controlled ICD2 trial. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02744-7CrossRef

87.

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research & Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. (2017). Multiple endpoints in clinical trials guidance for industry (No. FDA-2016-D-4460). Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/multiple-endpoints-clinical-trials-guidance-industry.

88.

Rebora, P., Spedale, V., Occhino, G., Luciani, M., Alvaro, R., Vellone, E., & Ausili, D. (2021). Effectiveness of motivational interviewing on anxiety, depression, sleep quality and quality of life in heart failure patients: secondary analysis of the MOTIVATE-HF randomized controlled trial. Quality of Life Research An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02788-3CrossRef

89.

Fife, D., & Rodgers, J. L. (2019). Moving Beyond the “Replication Crisis”: Understanding the Exploratory/Confirmatory Data Analysis Continuum. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5vfq6

90.

Jarab, A. S., Alefishat, E. A., Al-Qerem, W., Mukattash, T. L., & Abu-Zaytoun, L. (2021). Variables associated with poor health-related quality of life among patients with dyslipidemia in Jordan. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02726-9CrossRef

91.

Maxwell, S. E., Delaney, H., & Kelley, K. (2018). Designing Experiments and Analyzing Data: A Model Comparison Approach (3rd ed.). Routledge.

92.

Pan, Z., & Kupper, L. L. (1999). Sample size determination for multiple comparison studies treating confidence interval width as random. Statistics in Medicine, 18(12), 1475–1488.CrossRef

93.

Anderson, S. F. (2019). Best (but oft forgotten) practices: Sample size planning for powerful studies. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 110(2), 280–295. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqz058CrossRefPubMed

94.

Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLOS Medicine, 2(8), e124. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

95.

Hedges, L. V., & Schauer, J. M. (2019). More than one replication study is needed for unambiguous tests of replication. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 44(5), 543–570. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998619852953CrossRef

96.

LeBel, E. P., Campbell, L., & Loving, T. J. (2017). Benefits of open and high-powered research outweigh costs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(2), 230–243. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000049CrossRefPubMed

97.

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366.CrossRef

98.

Mazza, G. L., Enders, C. K., & Ruehlman, L. S. (2015). Addressing item-level missing data: a comparison of proration and full information maximum likelihood estimation. Multivariate behavioral research, 50(5), 504–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2015.1068157CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

99.

Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied Missing Data Analysis. Guilford Press.

100.

Batterham, A. M., & Atkinson, G. (2005). How big does my sample need to be? A primer on the murky world of sample size estimation. Physical Therapy in Sport, 6(3), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2005.05.004CrossRef

101.

Ahmed, A., Saqlain, M., Bashir, N., Dujaili, J., Hashmi, F., Mazhar, F., & Awaisu, A. (2021). Health-related quality of life and its predictors among adults living with HIV/AIDS and receiving antiretroviral therapy in Pakistan. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02771-yCrossRef

102.

Harden, M., & Friede, T. (2018). Sample size calculation in multi-centre clinical trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0602-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

103.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Liu, X. (2000). Statistical power and optimal design for multisite randomized trials. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.5.2.199CrossRefPubMed

104.

van Breukelen, G. J. P., & Candel, M. J. J. M. (2012). Calculating sample sizes for cluster randomized trials: We can keep it simple and efficient! Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65(11), 1212–1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.06.002CrossRefPubMed

105.

Hey, S. P., & Kimmelman, J. (2014). The questionable use of unequal allocation in confirmatory trials. Neurology, 82(1), 77–79. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000438226.10353.1cCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

106.

Julious, S. A., Campbell, M. J., Walker, S. J., George, S. L., & Machin, D. (2000). Sample sizes for cancer trials where Health Related Quality of Life is the primary outcome. The British Journal of Cancer, 83(7), 959–963.CrossRef

107.

Julious, S. A., George, S., Machin, D., & Stephens, R. J. (1997). Sample sizes for randomized trials measuring quality of life in cancer patients. Quality of Life Research, 6(2), 109–117.CrossRef

108.

Zimmerman, D., & Zumbo, B. (2015). Resolving the issue of how reliability is related to statistical power adhering to mathematical definitions. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 14(2), 9–26.CrossRef

109.

Maxwell, S. E. (1980). Dependent variable reliability and determination of sample size. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4(2), 253–260. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168000400211CrossRef

110.

Kanyongo, G., Brook, G., Kyei-Blankson, L., & Gocmen, G. (2007). Reliability and statistical power how measurement fallibility affects power and required sample sizes for several parametric and nonparametric statistics. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 6(1), 81–90.CrossRef

111.

Kelley, K. (2007). Confidence intervals for standardized effect sizes theory, application, and implementation. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(1), 1–24.

112.

Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. E. (1995). The impact of data-analysis methods on cumulative research knowledge: Statistical significance testing, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 18(4), 408–427.CrossRef

Titel: Power(ful) myths: misconceptions regarding sample size in quality of life research
Auteur: Samantha F. Anderson
Publicatiedatum: 29-10-2021
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 10/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-03020-y

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Method

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 10/2022

Reducing waste in collection of quality-of-life data through better reporting: a case study

Challenges and opportunities for using population health data to investigate cancer survivors’ quality of life in Australia

The impact of toxic oil syndrome on physical and psychological health status using the HAQ and the PHQ-9 questionnaires

Using validity theory and psychometrics to evaluate and support expanded uses of existing scales

Supporting researchers in knowledge translation and dissemination of their research to increase usability and impact

Utility values and its time to deterioration in breast cancer patients after diagnosis and during treatments