Use when determining required sample size for a study, or evaluating whether a completed study had adequate power to detect its effect
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add jeffreytse/grimoire-core --skill calculate-statistical-power --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Calculate Statistical Power?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/jeffreytse-calculate-statistical-power)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: calculate-statistical-power
description: Use when determining required sample size for a study, or evaluating whether a completed study had adequate power to detect its effect
source: Cohen "Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences" (1988); Button et al. "Power Failure" Nature Reviews Neuroscience (2013); G*Power methodology (Faul et al. 2007)
tags: [statistics, sample-size, power-analysis, experimental-design]
verified: true
---
# Calculate Statistical Power
Determine the minimum sample size needed to detect a biologically meaningful effect with specified confidence, preventing both underpowered and wasteful studies.
## Why This Is Best Practice
**Adopted by:** NIH grant review criteria (power statement required since 2014), FDA guidelines for clinical trials, Nature/Science submission checklists, ARRIVE 2.0 animal research guidelines.
**Impact:** Button et al. (2013) found median power of 21% in neuroscience studies — meaning 79% of negative results were false negatives. Studies with ≥80% power reduce false-negative rate to <20% and improve replication rates by ~2×.
**Why best:** Power analysis forces researchers to specify effect size before data collection, preventing HARKing; it quantifies the tradeoff between Type I error (α), Type II error (β), effect size, and n.
Sources: Cohen (1988) chapters 2–8; Button et al. Nature Rev Neurosci 14:365–376 (2013); Faul et al. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191 (2007).
## Steps
1. **Set α (significance level)** — use α=0.05 as default; use α=0.01 for exploratory studies with many comparisons; adjust for multiple comparisons (Bonferroni: α/k).
2. **Set desired power (1−β)** — use 0.80 as minimum; use 0.90 for high-stakes experiments (clinical, irreversible interventions).
3. **Specify the statistical test** — identify the test you will use: t-test, ANOVA, chi-square, correlation, regression, survival analysis. Power formulas differ by test.
4. **Estimate the effect size** — use Cohen's d for t-tests, f for ANOVA, r for correlations, w for chi-square. Sources in order of preference: (a) pilot data, (b) meta-analytic estimate, (c) smallest effect of biological importance, (d) Cohen's conventional values (small d=0.2, medium d=0.5, large d=0.8).
5. **Calculate n using G*Power or formula** — for two-sample t-test: n = 2(z_α/2 + z_β)² / d²; use G*Power 3.1 software for complex designs or run in R: `pwr::pwr.t.test(d=0.5, sig.level=0.05, power=0.80)`.
6. **Account for attrition** — inflate n by expected dropout rate: n_adjusted = n / (1 − dropout_rate). Use 10–20% for animal studies, 20–30% for human clinical trials.
7. **Report power justification** — write: "We require n=X per group to detect d=Y with 80% power at α=0.05 (two-tailed), based on [source of effect size estimate]."
8. **For completed studies** — calculate observed power only to contextualize a non-significant result; do not use observed power to retroactively justify design.
## Rules
- Never use post-hoc observed power to interpret a non-significant p-value — it is mathematically circular (Hoenig & Heisey 2001).
- Use pilot study effect sizes only as a starting point; pilot n is too small for reliable effect size estimation — prefer literature meta-analyses.
- Report all four parameters (α, power, effect size, n) in the methods section — partial reporting is insufficient for replication.
- When effect size is unknown, perform sensitivity analysis across a plausible range of effect sizes.
## Common Mistakes
- **Using "medium" effect size without justification** — defaulting to d=0.5 without biological rationale inflates or deflates n arbitrarily.
- **Ignoring multiple comparisons** — running 10 tests at α=0.05 without correction yields ~40% familywise error rate.
- **No attrition adjustment** — reaching target enrollment without buffer often results in underpowered final analyses.
- **Confusing one-tailed and two-tailed** — one-tailed tests require directional hypothesis stated a priori; using them post-hoc is p-hacking.
## When NOT to Use
- For purely exploratory/descriptive studies where no hypothesis test is planned (report effect sizes and CIs instead)
- For N-of-1 or case study designs where statistical inference is not the goal
- When performing Bayesian analysis (use Bayes Factor or decision-theoretic sample size planning instead)
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!