Post Hoc Power Calculations: An Inappropriate Method for Interpreting the Findings of a Research Study

被引:62
作者
Heckman, Michael G. [1 ]
Davis, John M., III [2 ]
Crowson, Cynthia S. [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Div Clin Trials & Biostat, Jacksonville, FL USA
[2] Mayo Clin, Div Rheumatol, Rochester, MN USA
[3] Mayo Clin, Div Rheumatol, Rochester, MN USA
[4] Mayo Clin, Div Clin Trials & Biostatist, Rochester, MN USA
关键词
power; sample size; type I error; type II error; effect size;
D O I
10.3899/jrheum.211115
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Power calculations are a key study design step in research studies. However, such power analysis is often inappropriately performed in the medical literature by attempting to help interpret the findings of a completed study, instead of attempting to aid in choosing an optimal sample size for a future study. The aim of this article is to provide a brief discussion of the drawbacks of performing these post hoc power calculations, and to correspondingly suggest best practices regarding the use of statistical power and the interpretation of study results. Specifically, power analysis should always be considered before any research study in order to choose an ideal sample size and/or to examine the feasibility of properly evaluating study aims, but it should never be used in order to help interpret the results of an already completed study. Alternatively, 95% confidence intervals for effect sizes (eg, odds ratio, hazard ratio, mean difference) or other relevant parameter estimates should be used when attempting to draw conclusions from results, such as the likelihood of a type II error (ie, a false negative finding).
引用
收藏
页码:867 / 870
页数:4
相关论文
共 13 条
[1]   Post Hoc Power: Not Empowering, Just Misleading [J].
Althouse, Andrew D. .
JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH, 2021, 259 :A3-A6
[2]   Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods [J].
Copay, Anne G. ;
Subach, Brian R. ;
Glassman, Steven D. ;
Polly, David W., Jr. ;
Schuler, Thomas C. .
SPINE JOURNAL, 2007, 7 (05) :541-546
[3]   The interpretation of statistical power after the data have been gathered [J].
Dziak, John Joseph ;
Dierker, Lisa C. ;
Abar, Beau .
CURRENT PSYCHOLOGY, 2020, 39 (03) :870-877
[4]   THE USE OF PREDICTED CONFIDENCE-INTERVALS WHEN PLANNING EXPERIMENTS AND THE MISUSE OF POWER WHEN INTERPRETING RESULTS [J].
GOODMAN, SN ;
BERLIN, JA .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1994, 121 (03) :200-206
[5]   The abuse of power: The pervasive fallacy of power calculations for data analysis [J].
Hoenig, JM ;
Heisey, DM .
AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, 2001, 55 (01) :19-24
[6]   Importance of Defining and Interpreting a Clinically Meaningful Difference in Clinical Research [J].
Kallogjeri, Dorina ;
Spitznagel, Edward L., Jr. ;
Piccirillo, Jay F. .
JAMA OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD & NECK SURGERY, 2020, 146 (02) :101-102
[7]   Post hoc power analysis: An idea whose time has passed? [J].
Levine, M ;
Ensom, MHH .
PHARMACOTHERAPY, 2001, 21 (04) :405-409
[8]   GDNF in Parkinson's disease: The perils of post-hoc power [J].
Matcham, James ;
McDermott, Michael P. ;
Lang, Anthony E. .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE METHODS, 2007, 163 (02) :193-196
[9]   Effect of High-Intensity Strength Training on Knee Pain and Knee Joint Compressive Forces Among Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis: The START Randomized Clinical Trial [J].
Messier, Stephen P. ;
Mihalko, Shannon L. ;
Beavers, Daniel P. ;
Nicklas, Barbara J. ;
DeVita, Paul ;
Carr, J. Jeffery ;
Hunter, David J. ;
Lyles, Mary ;
Guermazi, Ali ;
Bennell, Kim L. ;
Loeser, Richard F. .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2021, 325 (07) :646-657
[10]   Post hocPower [J].
Nuzzo, Regina L. .
PM&R, 2021, 13 (04) :422-424