Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 280

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Minimum Detectable Effects: A Simple Way to Report the Statistical Power of Experimental Designs

Bloom, Howard S.·1995·Evaluation Review

Abstract

This article describes a simple way to assess the statistical power of experimental designs. The approach presented is based on the concept of a minimum detectable effect, which, intuitively, is the smallest true impact that an experiment has a good chance of detecting. The article illustrates how to compute minimum detectable effects and how to apply this concept to the assessment of alternative experimental designs. Applications to impact estimators for both continuous and binary outcome measures are considered

Overview

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 · 10.1177/0193841x9501900504

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 280

Metadata

Authors
Bloom, H. S.
Venue
Evaluation Review
Published
1995-10
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
547-556
ISSN
  • 0145-4692 (ISSN-L)
  • 0193-841X
  • 1552-3926
OpenAlex
W2053520781
Cited by
280
References
1
FWCI
0.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Minimum Detectable Effects: A Simple Way to Report the Statistical Power of Experimental Designs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0193841x9501900504
The paper
Bloom, H. S. (1995). Minimum Detectable Effects: A Simple Way to Report the Statistical Power of Experimental Designs. Evaluation Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841x9501900504

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.