A Systematic Review on the Evolution of Power Analysis Practices in Psychological Research
Performing hypothesis tests with adequate statistical power is indispensable for psychological research. In response to several large-scale replication projects following the replication crisis, concerns about the root causes of this crisis – such as questionable research practices (QRPs) – have gro...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Ubiquity Press
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Psychologica Belgica |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://account.psychologicabelgica.com/index.php/up-j-pb/article/view/1318 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1823859302037716992 |
|---|---|
| author | Lara Vankelecom Ole Schacht Nathan Laroy Tom Loeys Beatrijs Moerkerke |
| author_facet | Lara Vankelecom Ole Schacht Nathan Laroy Tom Loeys Beatrijs Moerkerke |
| author_sort | Lara Vankelecom |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Performing hypothesis tests with adequate statistical power is indispensable for psychological research. In response to several large-scale replication projects following the replication crisis, concerns about the root causes of this crisis – such as questionable research practices (QRPs) – have grown. While initial efforts primarily addressed the inflation of the type I error rate of research due to QRPs, recent attention has shifted to the adverse consequences of low statistical power. In this paper we first argue how underpowered studies, in combination with publication bias, contribute to a literature rife with false positive results and overestimated effect sizes. We then examine whether the prevalence of power analyses in psychological research has effectively increased over time in response to the increased awareness regarding these phenomena. To address this, we conducted a systematic review of 903 published empirical articles across four APA-disciplines, comparing 453 papers published in 2015–2016, with 450 papers from 2020–2021. Although the prevalence of power analysis across different domains in psychology has increased over time (from 9.5% to 30%), it remains insufficient overall. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings and elaborating on some alternative methods to a priori power analysis that can help ensure sufficient statistical power. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-1aec9d4104fc4cccb11fdd49804cf4ae |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2054-670X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | Ubiquity Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Psychologica Belgica |
| spelling | doaj-art-1aec9d4104fc4cccb11fdd49804cf4ae2025-02-11T05:42:03ZengUbiquity PressPsychologica Belgica2054-670X2025-01-0165117–3717–3710.5334/pb.13181303A Systematic Review on the Evolution of Power Analysis Practices in Psychological ResearchLara Vankelecom0https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3213-9528Ole Schacht1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1608-3050Nathan Laroy2https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6633-8942Tom Loeys3https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4551-5502Beatrijs Moerkerke4https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1580-547XDepartment of Data-Analysis, Ghent UniversityDepartment of Data-Analysis, Ghent UniversityDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Ghent UniversityDepartment of Data-Analysis, Ghent UniversityDepartment of Data-Analysis, Ghent UniversityPerforming hypothesis tests with adequate statistical power is indispensable for psychological research. In response to several large-scale replication projects following the replication crisis, concerns about the root causes of this crisis – such as questionable research practices (QRPs) – have grown. While initial efforts primarily addressed the inflation of the type I error rate of research due to QRPs, recent attention has shifted to the adverse consequences of low statistical power. In this paper we first argue how underpowered studies, in combination with publication bias, contribute to a literature rife with false positive results and overestimated effect sizes. We then examine whether the prevalence of power analyses in psychological research has effectively increased over time in response to the increased awareness regarding these phenomena. To address this, we conducted a systematic review of 903 published empirical articles across four APA-disciplines, comparing 453 papers published in 2015–2016, with 450 papers from 2020–2021. Although the prevalence of power analysis across different domains in psychology has increased over time (from 9.5% to 30%), it remains insufficient overall. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings and elaborating on some alternative methods to a priori power analysis that can help ensure sufficient statistical power.https://account.psychologicabelgica.com/index.php/up-j-pb/article/view/1318replication crisisstatistical powerpublication biassystematic reviewpower analysis prevalence |
| spellingShingle | Lara Vankelecom Ole Schacht Nathan Laroy Tom Loeys Beatrijs Moerkerke A Systematic Review on the Evolution of Power Analysis Practices in Psychological Research Psychologica Belgica replication crisis statistical power publication bias systematic review power analysis prevalence |
| title | A Systematic Review on the Evolution of Power Analysis Practices in Psychological Research |
| title_full | A Systematic Review on the Evolution of Power Analysis Practices in Psychological Research |
| title_fullStr | A Systematic Review on the Evolution of Power Analysis Practices in Psychological Research |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Systematic Review on the Evolution of Power Analysis Practices in Psychological Research |
| title_short | A Systematic Review on the Evolution of Power Analysis Practices in Psychological Research |
| title_sort | systematic review on the evolution of power analysis practices in psychological research |
| topic | replication crisis statistical power publication bias systematic review power analysis prevalence |
| url | https://account.psychologicabelgica.com/index.php/up-j-pb/article/view/1318 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT laravankelecom asystematicreviewontheevolutionofpoweranalysispracticesinpsychologicalresearch AT oleschacht asystematicreviewontheevolutionofpoweranalysispracticesinpsychologicalresearch AT nathanlaroy asystematicreviewontheevolutionofpoweranalysispracticesinpsychologicalresearch AT tomloeys asystematicreviewontheevolutionofpoweranalysispracticesinpsychologicalresearch AT beatrijsmoerkerke asystematicreviewontheevolutionofpoweranalysispracticesinpsychologicalresearch AT laravankelecom systematicreviewontheevolutionofpoweranalysispracticesinpsychologicalresearch AT oleschacht systematicreviewontheevolutionofpoweranalysispracticesinpsychologicalresearch AT nathanlaroy systematicreviewontheevolutionofpoweranalysispracticesinpsychologicalresearch AT tomloeys systematicreviewontheevolutionofpoweranalysispracticesinpsychologicalresearch AT beatrijsmoerkerke systematicreviewontheevolutionofpoweranalysispracticesinpsychologicalresearch |