检测什么的能力?规划和评估样本大小的注意事项。

IF 7.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Personality and Social Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-12 DOI:10.1177/10888683241228328
Roger Giner-Sorolla, Amanda K Montoya, Alan Reifman, Tom Carpenter, Neil A Lewis, Christopher L Aberson, Dries H Bostyn, Beverly G Conrique, Brandon W Ng, Alexander M Schoemann, Courtney Soderberg
{"title":"检测什么的能力?规划和评估样本大小的注意事项。","authors":"Roger Giner-Sorolla, Amanda K Montoya, Alan Reifman, Tom Carpenter, Neil A Lewis, Christopher L Aberson, Dries H Bostyn, Beverly G Conrique, Brandon W Ng, Alexander M Schoemann, Courtney Soderberg","doi":"10.1177/10888683241228328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Academic abstract: </strong>In the wake of the replication crisis, social and personality psychologists have increased attention to power analysis and the adequacy of sample sizes. In this article, we analyze current controversies in this area, including choosing effect sizes, why and whether power analyses should be conducted on already-collected data, how to mitigate the negative effects of sample size criteria on specific kinds of research, and which power criterion to use. For novel research questions, we advocate that researchers base sample sizes on effects that are likely to be cost-effective for other people to implement (in applied settings) or to study (in basic research settings), given the limitations of interest-based minimums or field-wide effect sizes. We discuss two alternatives to power analysis, precision analysis and sequential analysis, and end with recommendations for improving the practices of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors in social-personality psychology.</p><p><strong>Public abstract: </strong>Recently, social-personality psychology has been criticized for basing some of its conclusions on studies with low numbers of participants. As a result, power analysis, a mathematical way to ensure that a study has enough participants to reliably \"detect\" a given size of psychological effect, has become popular. This article describes power analysis and discusses some controversies about it, including how researchers should derive assumptions about effect size, and how the requirements of power analysis can be applied without harming research on hard-to-reach and marginalized communities. For novel research questions, we advocate that researchers base sample sizes on effects that are likely to be cost-effective for other people to implement (in applied settings) or to study (in basic research settings). We discuss two alternatives to power analysis, precision analysis and sequential analysis, and end with recommendations for improving the practices of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors in social-personality psychology.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"276-301"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11193916/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Power to Detect What? Considerations for Planning and Evaluating Sample Size.\",\"authors\":\"Roger Giner-Sorolla, Amanda K Montoya, Alan Reifman, Tom Carpenter, Neil A Lewis, Christopher L Aberson, Dries H Bostyn, Beverly G Conrique, Brandon W Ng, Alexander M Schoemann, Courtney Soderberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10888683241228328\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Academic abstract: </strong>In the wake of the replication crisis, social and personality psychologists have increased attention to power analysis and the adequacy of sample sizes. In this article, we analyze current controversies in this area, including choosing effect sizes, why and whether power analyses should be conducted on already-collected data, how to mitigate the negative effects of sample size criteria on specific kinds of research, and which power criterion to use. For novel research questions, we advocate that researchers base sample sizes on effects that are likely to be cost-effective for other people to implement (in applied settings) or to study (in basic research settings), given the limitations of interest-based minimums or field-wide effect sizes. We discuss two alternatives to power analysis, precision analysis and sequential analysis, and end with recommendations for improving the practices of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors in social-personality psychology.</p><p><strong>Public abstract: </strong>Recently, social-personality psychology has been criticized for basing some of its conclusions on studies with low numbers of participants. As a result, power analysis, a mathematical way to ensure that a study has enough participants to reliably \\\"detect\\\" a given size of psychological effect, has become popular. This article describes power analysis and discusses some controversies about it, including how researchers should derive assumptions about effect size, and how the requirements of power analysis can be applied without harming research on hard-to-reach and marginalized communities. For novel research questions, we advocate that researchers base sample sizes on effects that are likely to be cost-effective for other people to implement (in applied settings) or to study (in basic research settings). We discuss two alternatives to power analysis, precision analysis and sequential analysis, and end with recommendations for improving the practices of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors in social-personality psychology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality and Social Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"276-301\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11193916/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality and Social Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683241228328\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683241228328","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学术摘要:在复制危机之后,社会和人格心理学家们更加关注效应分析和样本大小的适当性。在这篇文章中,我们分析了这一领域目前存在的争议,包括效应大小的选择、为什么以及是否应该对已收集的数据进行功率分析、如何减轻样本大小标准对特定类型研究的负面影响,以及使用哪种功率标准。对于新颖的研究问题,考虑到基于兴趣的最小值或全领域效应大小的局限性,我们主张研究人员将样本大小建立在对其他人来说实施(在应用环境中)或研究(在基础研究环境中)可能具有成本效益的效应之上。我们讨论了功率分析的两种替代方法--精确分析和序列分析,最后提出了改进社会人格心理学研究人员、审稿人和期刊编辑实践的建议。公众号摘要:最近,社会人格心理学因其某些结论建立在参与人数较少的研究基础上而受到批评。因此,功率分析--一种确保研究有足够的参与者以可靠地 "检测 "出一定大小的心理效应的数学方法--开始流行起来。本文介绍了动力分析,并讨论了一些相关争议,包括研究人员应如何推导效应大小的假设,以及如何应用动力分析的要求而不损害对难以接触和边缘化群体的研究。对于新颖的研究问题,我们主张研究人员将样本大小建立在对其他人来说实施(在应用环境中)或研究(在基础研究环境中)可能具有成本效益的效果之上。我们讨论了功率分析的两种替代方法--精确分析和序列分析,最后提出了改进社会个性心理学研究人员、审稿人和期刊编辑工作的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Power to Detect What? Considerations for Planning and Evaluating Sample Size.

Academic abstract: In the wake of the replication crisis, social and personality psychologists have increased attention to power analysis and the adequacy of sample sizes. In this article, we analyze current controversies in this area, including choosing effect sizes, why and whether power analyses should be conducted on already-collected data, how to mitigate the negative effects of sample size criteria on specific kinds of research, and which power criterion to use. For novel research questions, we advocate that researchers base sample sizes on effects that are likely to be cost-effective for other people to implement (in applied settings) or to study (in basic research settings), given the limitations of interest-based minimums or field-wide effect sizes. We discuss two alternatives to power analysis, precision analysis and sequential analysis, and end with recommendations for improving the practices of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors in social-personality psychology.

Public abstract: Recently, social-personality psychology has been criticized for basing some of its conclusions on studies with low numbers of participants. As a result, power analysis, a mathematical way to ensure that a study has enough participants to reliably "detect" a given size of psychological effect, has become popular. This article describes power analysis and discusses some controversies about it, including how researchers should derive assumptions about effect size, and how the requirements of power analysis can be applied without harming research on hard-to-reach and marginalized communities. For novel research questions, we advocate that researchers base sample sizes on effects that are likely to be cost-effective for other people to implement (in applied settings) or to study (in basic research settings). We discuss two alternatives to power analysis, precision analysis and sequential analysis, and end with recommendations for improving the practices of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors in social-personality psychology.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
19.00
自引率
1.90%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Title: Personality and Social Psychology Review (PSPR) Journal Overview: Official journal of SPSP, the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. Premiere outlet for original theoretical papers and conceptual review articles in all areas of personality and social psychology Features stimulating conceptual pieces identifying new research directions and comprehensive review papers providing integrative frameworks for existing theory and research programs Topics Covered: Attitudes and Social Cognition: Examines the inner workings of the human mind in understanding, evaluating, and responding to the social environment Interpersonal and Group Processes: Explores patterns of interaction and interdependence characterizing everyday human functioning Intergroup Relations: Investigates determinants of prejudice, conflict, cooperation, and harmonious relationships between social groups Personality and Individual Differences: Focuses on causes, assessment, structures, and processes giving rise to human variation Biological and Cultural Influences: Studies the biological and cultural mediation of social psychological and personality processes
期刊最新文献
Where Is Capitalism? Unmasking Its Hidden Role in Psychology. A Theoretical Model of Victimization, Perpetration, and Denial in Mass Atrocities: Case Studies From Indonesia, Cambodia, East Timor, and Myanmar. Being as Having, Loving, and Doing: A Theory of Human Well-Being. Intergenerational Storytelling and Positive Psychosocial Development: Stories as Developmental Resources for Marginalized Groups. “My Aim Is True”: An Attribution-Identity Model of Ally Sincerity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1