“Power failure: Why Small Sample Size Undermines the Reliability of Neuroscience”


An article in Nature Reviews Neuroscience about low sample sizes suggests, according to The Guardian, that “the likelihood that any claimed effect (based on passing a conventional level of statistical significance) actually is true is only 50%. That’s a 50/50 chance that any positive effects are spurious. For a confirmatory study with four to one pre-study odds, the chance that any positive effects are spurious is reduced to 25%.”

Article →

Of further interest:
Unreliable neuroscience? Why power matters (The Guardian)
Neuroscience Cannae Do It Cap’n, It Doesn’t Have the Power (National Geographic)