USING R FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH: A TUTORIAL OF BASIC METHODS

2020 ◽  
pp. 28-63
Author(s):  
A. G. Vinogradov
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Research Data ◽  
Statistical Hypothesis ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Measurement Scales

The article belongs to a special modern genre of scholar publications, so-called tutorials – articles devoted to the application of the latest methods of design, modeling or analysis in an accessible format in order to disseminate best practices. The article acquaints Ukrainian psychologists with the basics of using the R programming language to the analysis of empirical research data. The article discusses the current state of world psychology in connection with the Crisis of Confidence, which arose due to the low reproducibility of empirical research. This problem is caused by poor quality of psychological measurement tools, insufficient attention to adequate sample planning, typical statistical hypothesis testing practices, and so-called “questionable research practices.” The tutorial demonstrates methods for determining the sample size depending on the expected magnitude of the effect size and desired statistical power, performing basic variable transformations and statistical analysis of psychological research data using language and environment R. The tutorial presents minimal system of R functions required to carry out: modern analysis of reliability of measurement scales, sample size calculation, point and interval estimation of effect size for four the most widespread in psychology designs for the analysis of two variables’ interdependence. These typical problems include finding the differences between the means and variances in two or more samples, correlations between continuous and categorical variables. Practical information on data preparation, import, basic transformations, and application of basic statistical methods in the cloud version of RStudio is provided.

scholarly journals Causality in Statistical Power: Isomorphic Properties of Measurement, Research Design, Effect Size, and Sample Size

Scientifica ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Eric Heidel
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Cognitive Dissonance ◽  
Research Design ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Research Study ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
Design Effect

Statistical power is the ability to detect a significant effect, given that the effect actually exists in a population. Like most statistical concepts, statistical power tends to induce cognitive dissonance in hepatology researchers. However, planning for statistical power by ana priorisample size calculation is of paramount importance when designing a research study. There are five specific empirical components that make up ana priorisample size calculation: the scale of measurement of the outcome, the research design, the magnitude of the effect size, the variance of the effect size, and the sample size. A framework grounded in the phenomenon of isomorphism, or interdependencies amongst different constructs with similar forms, will be presented to understand the isomorphic effects of decisions made on each of the five aforementioned components of statistical power.

scholarly journals Effect size and statistical power in the rodent fear conditioning literature – a systematic review

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clarissa F. D. Carneiro ◽  
Thiago C. Moulin ◽  
Malcolm R. Macleod ◽  
Olavo B. Amaral
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Fear Conditioning ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
Wide Distribution ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Biomedical Science ◽  
Case Scenario

AbstractProposals to increase research reproducibility frequently call for focusing on effect sizes instead of p values, as well as for increasing the statistical power of experiments. However, it is unclear to what extent these two concepts are indeed taken into account in basic biomedical science. To study this in a real-case scenario, we performed a systematic review of effect sizes and statistical power in studies on learning of rodent fear conditioning, a widely used behavioral task to evaluate memory. Our search criteria yielded 410 experiments comparing control and treated groups in 122 articles. Interventions had a mean effect size of 29.5%, and amnesia caused by memory-impairing interventions was nearly always partial. Mean statistical power to detect the average effect size observed in well-powered experiments with significant differences (37.2%) was 65%, and was lower among studies with non-significant results. Only one article reported a sample size calculation, and our estimated sample size to achieve 80% power considering typical effect sizes and variances (15 animals per group) was reached in only 12.2% of experiments. Actual effect sizes correlated with effect size inferences made by readers on the basis of textual descriptions of results only when findings were non-significant, and neither effect size nor power correlated with study quality indicators, number of citations or impact factor of the publishing journal. In summary, effect sizes and statistical power have a wide distribution in the rodent fear conditioning literature, but do not seem to have a large influence on how results are described or cited. Failure to take these concepts into consideration might limit attempts to improve reproducibility in this field of science.

How to Detect Publication Bias in Psychological Research

2019 ◽  
Vol 227 (4) ◽  
pp. 261-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Renkewitz ◽  
Melanie Keiner
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Type I ◽  
True Effect Size ◽  
Questionable Research Practices ◽  
True Effect ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract. Publication biases and questionable research practices are assumed to be two of the main causes of low replication rates. Both of these problems lead to severely inflated effect size estimates in meta-analyses. Methodologists have proposed a number of statistical tools to detect such bias in meta-analytic results. We present an evaluation of the performance of six of these tools. To assess the Type I error rate and the statistical power of these methods, we simulated a large variety of literatures that differed with regard to true effect size, heterogeneity, number of available primary studies, and sample sizes of these primary studies; furthermore, simulated studies were subjected to different degrees of publication bias. Our results show that across all simulated conditions, no method consistently outperformed the others. Additionally, all methods performed poorly when true effect sizes were heterogeneous or primary studies had a small chance of being published, irrespective of their results. This suggests that in many actual meta-analyses in psychology, bias will remain undiscovered no matter which detection method is used.

scholarly journals An N-Pact Factor for Clinical Psychological Research

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen Wade Reardon ◽  
Avante J Smack ◽  
Kathrin Herzhoff ◽  
Jennifer L Tackett
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Medium Effect ◽  
Medium Effect Size ◽  
One Step ◽  
Hard To Reach Populations ◽  
Self Examination ◽  
Adequate Sample Size

Although an emphasis on adequate sample size and statistical power has a long history in clinical psychological science (Cohen, 1992), increased attention to the replicability of scientific findings has again turned attention to the importance of statistical power (Bakker, van Dijk, & Wicherts, 2012). These recent efforts have not yet circled back to modern clinical psychological research, despite the continued importance of sample size and power in producing a credible body of evidence. As one step in this process of scientific self-examination, the present study estimated an N-pact Factor (the statistical power of published empirical studies to detect typical effect sizes; Fraley & Vazire, 2014) in two leading clinical journals (the Journal of Abnormal Psychology; JAP, and the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology; JCCP) for the years 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. Study sample size, as one proxy for statistical power, is a useful focus because it allows direct comparisons with other subfields and may highlight some of the core methodological differences between clinical and other areas (e.g., hard-to-reach populations, greater emphasis on correlational designs). We found that, across all years examined, the average median sample size in clinical research is 179 participants (175 for JAP and 182 for JCCP). The power to detect a small-medium effect size of .20 is just below 80% for both journals. Although the clinical N-pact factor was higher than that estimated for social psychology, the statistical power in clinical journals is still limited to detect many effects of interest to clinical psychologists, with little evidence of improvement in sample sizes over time.

scholarly journals A Multi-faceted Mess: A Review of Statistical Power Analysis in Psychology Journal Articles

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Cribbie ◽  
Nataly Beribisky ◽  
Udi Alter
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Power Analysis ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Type I ◽  
Specific Level ◽  
Maximum Sample Size ◽  
Power Analyses

Many bodies recommend that a sample planning procedure, such as traditional NHST a priori power analysis, is conducted during the planning stages of a study. Power analysis allows the researcher to estimate how many participants are required in order to detect a minimally meaningful effect size at a specific level of power and Type I error rate. However, there are several drawbacks to the procedure that render it “a mess.” Specifically, the identification of the minimally meaningful effect size is often difficult but unavoidable for conducting the procedure properly, the procedure is not precision oriented, and does not guide the researcher to collect as many participants as feasibly possible. In this study, we explore how these three theoretical issues are reflected in applied psychological research in order to better understand whether these issues are concerns in practice. To investigate how power analysis is currently used, this study reviewed the reporting of 443 power analyses in high impact psychology journals in 2016 and 2017. It was found that researchers rarely use the minimally meaningful effect size as a rationale for the chosen effect in a power analysis. Further, precision-based approaches and collecting the maximum sample size feasible are almost never used in tandem with power analyses. In light of these findings, we offer that researchers should focus on tools beyond traditional power analysis when sample planning, such as collecting the maximum sample size feasible.

scholarly journals Statistical Power in Content Analysis Designs: How Effect Size, Sample Size and Coding Accuracy Jointly Affect Hypothesis Testing ‐ A Monte Carlo Simulation Approach.

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-89
Author(s):  
Stefan Geiß
Keyword(s):  
Monte Carlo Simulation ◽  
Monte Carlo ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Sample Sizes ◽  
Expected Effect ◽  
Sample Size Effect

Abstract This study uses Monte Carlo simulation techniques to estimate the minimum required levels of intercoder reliability in content analysis data for testing correlational hypotheses, depending on sample size, effect size and coder behavior under uncertainty. The ensuing procedure is analogous to power calculations for experimental designs. In most widespread sample size/effect size settings, the rule-of-thumb that chance-adjusted agreement should be ≥.80 or ≥.667 corresponds to the simulation results, resulting in acceptable α and β error rates. However, this simulation allows making precise power calculations that can consider the specifics of each study’s context, moving beyond one-size-fits-all recommendations. Studies with low sample sizes and/or low expected effect sizes may need coder agreement above .800 to test a hypothesis with sufficient statistical power. In studies with high sample sizes and/or high expected effect sizes, coder agreement below .667 may suffice. Such calculations can help in both evaluating and in designing studies. Particularly in pre-registered research, higher sample sizes may be used to compensate for low expected effect sizes and/or borderline coding reliability (e.g. when constructs are hard to measure). I supply equations, easy-to-use tables and R functions to facilitate use of this framework, along with example code as online appendix.

scholarly journals Required sample size for comparing two independent means

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 106-113
Author(s):  
A. M. Grjibovski ◽  
M. A. Gorbatova ◽  
A. N. Narkevich ◽  
K. A. Vinogradov
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Type I ◽  
Research Practice ◽  
False Null Hypothesis ◽  
Different Levels ◽  
Russian Research

Sample size calculation in a planning phase is still uncommon in Russian research practice. This situation threatens validity of the conclusions and may introduce Type I error when the false null hypothesis is accepted due to lack of statistical power to detect the existing difference between the means. Comparing two means using unpaired Students’ ttests is the most common statistical procedure in the Russian biomedical literature. However, calculations of the minimal required sample size or retrospective calculation of the statistical power were observed only in very few publications. In this paper we demonstrate how to calculate required sample size for comparing means in unpaired samples using WinPepi and Stata software. In addition, we produced tables for minimal required sample size for studies when two means have to be compared and body mass index and blood pressure are the variables of interest. The tables were constructed for unpaired samples for different levels of statistical power and standard deviations obtained from the literature.

New Effect Sizes for Tests of Categorical Moderation and Differential Prediction

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 639-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher D. Nye ◽  
Paul R. Sackett
Keyword(s):  
Effect Size ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Psychological Research ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Differential Prediction ◽  
Large Sample ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Large Databases

Moderator hypotheses involving categorical variables are prevalent in organizational and psychological research. Despite their importance, current methods of identifying and interpreting these moderation effects have several limitations that may result in misleading conclusions about their implications. This issue has been particularly salient in the literature on differential prediction where recent research has suggested that these limitations have had a significant impact on past research. To help address these issues, we propose several new effect size indices that provide additional information about categorical moderation analyses. The advantages of these indices are then illustrated in two large databases of respondents by examining categorical moderation in the prediction of psychological well-being and the extent of differential prediction in a large sample of job incumbents.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document