Comparing two small samples with an unstable, treatment-independent baseline
Abstract
Due to time and resource constraints, small samples (N=3-7 cases per group) are often used in neurobiological studies that employ multiple techniques. In a simulation study, five statistical tests were used to compare two small samples (treated and control) with an unstable, additive baseline. These five tests differed in the way that they used the baseline variable (B) to adjust or normalize the variable affected by the treatment (Y). We conclude that, if N=3 or 4, the independent t-test on Y-B tends to have the highest power; if N> or =7, ANCOVA on Y with B as the covariate tends to have the highest power; and both tests have comparably high power if N=5 or 6. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test (or, equivalently, the Mann-Whitney test) has precisely zero power if one group has 3 cases and the other has 3 or 4 cases. Some other problems of small-sample analysis are considered.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The erratic Type I/II error behavior of the t-testR can be explained by a quantization phenomenon.
“The erratic Type I/II error behavior of the t-testR can be explained by a quantization phenomenon, as also explained by Janušonis (2009).”
From Using the Student's t-test with extremely small sample sizes (2013) · cites this paper as Janušonis (2009)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Using the Student's t-test with extremely small sample sizes
de Winter, J. C. F. (2013) · University of Massachusetts Amherst · doi:10.7275/e4r6-dj05 · Cited by 992 · see citing works
- Authors
- Janušonis, S.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
- Corresponding author
- Janušonis, Skirmantas
- Venue
- Journal of Neuroscience Methods
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-05
- Volume
- 179
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 173-178
- ISSN
- 0165-0270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2003749230
- Cited by
- 49
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Neuroscience Methods (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of California, Santa Barbara
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Probability and Statistical Research
- Keywords
- small sample comparison, baseline correction, covariance analysis, independent samples t-test, Mann-Whitney test, statistical power, sample size
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Computer Simulation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Neurosciences, Research Design, Software, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical, Artifacts, Sample Size
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