Editorial: Statistical power calculations reflect our love affair with P-values and hypothesis testing: Time for a fundamental change

Spinal Cord

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 52-

  Harvey, L A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; CALCULATION; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); EDITORIAL; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HYPOTHESIS; PLANNING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; SAMPLE SIZE; SPINAL CORD INJURY; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNCERTAINTY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

HUMANS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; RESEARCH DESIGN; SPINAL CORD INJURIES;

EID: 84891671923     PISSN: 13624393     EISSN: 14765624     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sc.2013.117     Document Type: Editorial

References (6)

1. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet 2005; 365: 1348-1353.
2. Goodman SN, Berlin JA. The use of predicted confidence intervals when planning experiments and the misuse of power when interpreting results. Ann Intern Med 1994; 121: 200-206.
3. Cumming G.Understanding the New Statistics: Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals and Meta-Analysis. Routledge: London, UK, 2012.
4. Schmidt F, Hunter J. Eight common but false objections to the discontinuation of significance testing in the analysis of research data. In: Harlow L, Mulaik S and Steiger J (eds) What If There Were No Significance Tests?. Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, 1997.
5. Edwards SJL, Lilford RJ, Braunholtz D, Jackson J. Why underpowered trials are not necessarily unethical. Lancet 1997; 350: 804-807.
6. Fidler F, Thomason N, Cumming G, Finch S, Leeman J. Editors can lead researchers to confidence intervals, but cant make them think: statistical reform lessons from medicine. Psychol Sci 2004; 15: 119-126.