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

0
118

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)

Support MIA

MIA relies on the support of its readers to exist. Please consider a donation to help us provide news, essays, podcasts and continuing education courses that explore alternatives to the current paradigm of psychiatric care. Your tax-deductible donation will help build a community devoted to creating such change.

$
Select Payment Method
Personal Info

Credit Card Info
This is a secure SSL encrypted payment.

Billing Details

Donation Total: $20 One Time

LEAVE A REPLY