Cited by 414Statistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Performing high‐powered studies efficiently with sequential analyses

Open access
Lakens, Daniël·2014·European Journal of Social Psychology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Running studies with high statistical power, while effect size estimates in psychology are often inaccurate, leads to a practical challenge when designing an experiment. This challenge can be addressed by performing sequential analyses while the data collection is still in progress. At an interim analysis, data collection can be stopped whenever the results are convincing enough to conclude that an effect is present, more data can be collected, or the study can be terminated whenever it is extremely unlikely that the predicted effect will be observed if data collection would be continued. Such interim analyses can be performed while controlling the Type 1 error rate. Sequential analyses can greatly improve the efficiency with which data are collected. Additional flexibility is provided by adaptive designs where sample sizes are increased on the basis of the observed effect size. The need for pre‐registration, ways to prevent experimenter bias, and a comparison between Bayesian approaches and null‐hypothesis significance testing (NHST) are discussed. Sequential analyses, which are widely used in large‐scale medical trials, provide an efficient way to perform high‐powered informative experiments. I hope this introduction will provide a practical primer that allows researchers to incorporate sequential analyses in their research. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ejsp.2023

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Given a desired level of statistical power (e.g., 80%) and a specific α (e.g., .05), this implies a smallest effect size they find worthwhile to examine or a SESOI they can reliably examine.

    “Given a desired level of statistical power (e.g., 80%) and a specific α (e.g., .05), this implies a smallest effect size they find worthwhile to examine or a SESOI (Lakens, 2014) they can reliably examine.”

    From Equivalence Tests (2017) · cites this paper as Lakens, 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 34 · Cited by 414

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Armitage, P., McPherson, C. K., & Rowe, B. C. (1969). Repeated significance tests on accumulating data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 132, 235-244.
  2. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Academic.
  3. Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confi- dence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
  4. Dodge, H. F., & Romig, H. G. (1929). A method of sampling inspection. Bell System Technical Journal, 8(4), 613-631.
  5. Donnellan, M. B., Lucas, R. E., & Cesario, J. (in press). On the association between loneliness and bathing habits: Nine replications of Bargh and Shalev (2012) study 1. Emotion.
  6. Ellemers, N. (2013). Connecting the dots: Mobilizing theory to reveal the big picture in social psychology (and why we should do this). European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 1-8. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.1932 European Medicines Agency. (2006). Point to consider on methodological is- sues in confirmatory clinical trials with flexible design and analysis plan. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use. CPMP/EWP/2459/02, London, UK. · DOI
  7. Klein, O., Doyen, S., Leys, C., Miller, S., Questienne, L., & Cleeremans, A. (2012). Low hopes, high expectations: Expectancy effects and the replica- bility of behavioral experiments. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 572-584.
  8. Lan, K. K. G., & Trost, D. C. (1997). Estimation of parameters and sample size re-estimation. In Proceedings-Biopharmaceutical Section American Statistical Association. American Statistical Association, 48-51.
  9. Leifer, E. S., & Geller, N. L. (2012). Monitoring randomized clinical trials. In K. Hinkelmann (Ed.), Design and analysis of experiments, special designs and applications (vol. 3, pp. 213-249). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  10. Miller, J., & Schwarz, W. (2011). Aggregate and individual replication prob- ability within an explicit model of the research process. Psychological Methods, 16, 337-360. DOI: 10.1037/a0023347 · DOI
  11. Murayama, K., Pekrun, R., & Fiedler, K. (2013). Research practices that can prevent an inflation of false-positive rates. Personality and Social Psychol- ogy Review. DOI: 10.1177/1088868313496330 · DOI
  12. Pocock, S. J. (1977). Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika, 64(2), 191-199.
  13. Proschan, M. A., Lan, K. G., & Wittes, J. T. (2006). Statistical monitoring of clinical trials: A unified approach. Washington, DC: Springer.
  14. Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 609-612. DOI: 10.1016/j. jrp.2013.05.009 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2013). Life after p-hacking. Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA, 17-19 January 2013. Available at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2139/ssrn.2205186 · DOI
  16. Simonsohn, U. (2014). Evaluating replication results. Downloaded on September 30 th 2013 from http://ssrn.com/abstract=2259879. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2259879 · DOI
  17. Spiegelhalter D., Abrams K., & Myer J. (2004). Bayesian approaches to clin- ical trials and health-care evaluations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  18. Wagenmakers, E. J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p-values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779-804.

Authors
Lakens, D.
Affiliations
Eindhoven University of Technology (NL)
Corresponding author
Lakens, Daniël
Venue
European Journal of Social Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-08-15
Volume
44
Issue
7
Pages
701-710
ISSN
  • 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0992
OpenAlex
W3125052208
Cited by
414
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 62 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4
FWCI
17.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • TU/e Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
sequential analysis, interim analysis, stopping boundaries, type I error control, statistical power, adaptive design, sample allocation, preregistration, researcher bias, Bayesian hypothesis testing, null hypothesis significance testing, data collection efficiency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review