Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Statistical Power and Sample Size: Some Fundamentals for Clinician Researchers

  • Chapter
Essentials of Clinical Research

  • 1799 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter aims to arm clinical researchers with the necessary conceptual and practical tools (1) to understand what sample size or power analysis is, (2) to conduct such analyses for basic low-risk studies, and (3) to recognize when it is necessary to seek expert advice and input. I hope it is obvious that this chapter aims to serve as a general guide to the issues; specific details and mathematical presentations may be found in the cited literature. Additionally, it should be obvious that this discussion of statistical power is focused, appropriately, on quantitative investigations into real or hypothetical effects of treatments or interventions. It does not address qualitative study designs. The ultimate goal here is to help practicing clinical researcher get started with power analyses.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baussell RB, Li Y-F. Power Analysis for Experimental Research: A Practical Guide for the Biological, Medical and Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge; 2002 (p ix).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Herman A, Notzer N, Libman Z, Braunstein R, Steinberg DM. Statistical education for medical students–concepts are what remain when the details are forgotten. Stat Med. Oct 15, 2007; 26(23):4344–4351.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Berry DA. Introduction to Bayesian methods III: use and interpretation of Bayesian tools in design and analysis. Clin Trials. 2005; 2(4):295–300; discussion 301–294, 364–278.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Berry DA. Bayesian statistics. Med Decis Making. Sep–Oct 2006; 26(5):429–430.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Browne RH. Using the sample range as a basis for calculating sample size in power calculations. Am Statistician. 2001; 55:293–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bloom HS. Minimum detectable effects: a simple way to report the statistical power of experimental designs. Evaluat Rev. Oct 1995; 10(5):547–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Greenland S. Power, sample size and smallest detectable effect determination for multivariate studies. Stat Med. Apr–June 1985; 4(2):117–127.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Poole C. Low P-values or narrow confidence intervals: which are more durable? Epidemiology. May 2001; 12(3):291–294.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Savitz DA, Tolo KA, Poole C. Statistical significance testing in the American Journal of Epidemiology, 1970–1990. Am J Epidemiol. May 15, 1994; 139(10):1047–1052.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sterne JA. Teaching hypothesis tests–time for significant change? Stat Med. Apr 15, 2002; 21(7):985–994; discussion 995–999, 1001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Greenland S. On sample-size and power calculations for studies using confidence intervals. Am J Epidemiol. July 1988; 128(1):231–237.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hintz J. PASS 2008, NCSSLLC. www.ncss.com.

  13. Hoenig JM, Heisey D. The abuse of power: the pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis. Am Stat. 2001; 55:19–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chow S-C, Shao J, Wang H. Sample Size Calculations in Clinical Research. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Lipsey M. Design Sensitivity: Statistical Power for Experimental Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Maxwell SE, Kelly K, Rausch JR. Sample size planning for statistical power and accuracy in parameter estimation. Ann Rev Psychol. 2008; 59:537–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Oakes JM, Feldman HA. Statistical power for nonequivalent pretest-posttest designs. The impact of change-score versus ANCOVA models. Eval Rev. Feb 2001; 25(1):3–28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Feldman HA, McKinlay SM. Cohort versus cross-sectional design in large field trials: precision, sample size, and a unifying model. Stat Med. Jan 15, 1994; 13(1):61–78.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Armstrong B. A simple estimator of minimum detectable relative risk, sample size, or power in cohort studies. Am J Epidemiol. Aug 1987; 126(2):356–358.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Greenland S. Tests for interaction in epidemiologic studies: a review and a study of power. Stat Med. Apr–June 1983; 2(2):243–251.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Self SG, Mauritsen RH. Power/sample size calculations for generalized linear models. Biometrics. 1988; 44:79–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN

    J. Michael Oakes Ph.D. (McKnight Presidential Fellow, Associate Professor of Epidemiology & Community Health)

Authors
  1. J. Michael Oakes Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL, USA

    Stephen P. Glasser

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Oakes, J.M. (2008). Statistical Power and Sample Size: Some Fundamentals for Clinician Researchers. In: Glasser, S.P. (eds) Essentials of Clinical Research. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8486-7_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8486-7_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8485-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8486-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation