Cited by 121Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

A Note on Misconceptions Concerning Prospective and Retrospective Power

Zumbo, Bruno D., Hubley, Anita M.·1998·Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician)

Abstract

This paper addresses some misconceptions concerning prospective and retrospective power when journal editors, reviewers and readers want to know the observed power of statistical tests within a completed study. In addition, a practical solution to both the problem of computing the power after a study has been conducted and the critical evaluation of null findings is suggested

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1467-9884.00139

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Retrospective power analyses are based on the assumption that the sample effect size is essentially identical to the effect size in the population from which it was drawn.

    “Retrospective power analyses are based on the highly questionable assumption that the sample effect size is essentially identical to the effect size in the population from which it was drawn (Zumbo & Hubley, 1998).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zumbo, B. D., & Hubley, A. M.
Affiliations
University of Northern British Columbia (CA)
Venue
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician)
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1998-07
Volume
47
Issue
2
Pages
385-388
ISSN
  • 0039-0526 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9884
OpenAlex
W2011427590
Cited by
121
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series D (The Statistician) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
statistical power, negative results, null hypothesis significance testing, statistical misconceptions

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