Cited by 2,046Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

The Abuse of Power: The Pervasive Fallacy of Power Calculations for Data Analysis

Hoenig, John M, Heisey, Dennis M·2001·The American Statistician

Abstract

It is well known that statistical power calculations can be valuable in planning an experiment. There is also a large literature advocating that power calculations be made whenever one performs a statistical test of a hypothesis and one obtains a statistically nonsignificant result. Advocates of such post-experiment power calculations claim the calculations should be used to aid in the interpretation of the experimental results. This approach, which appears in various forms, is fundamentally flawed. We document that the problem is extensive and present arguments to demonstrate the flaw in the logic.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1198/000313001300339897

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • Post-hoc power analysis is criticized because the type II error calculated using the results of negative clinical trials is always high, which sometimes leads to incorrect conclusions regarding power.

    “Post-hoc power analysis is criticized because the type II error calculated using the results of negative clinical trials is always high, which sometimes leads to incorrect conclusions regarding power [13,14].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoenig, J. M., & Heisey, D. M.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Venue
The American Statistician
Published
2001-02
Volume
55
Issue
1
Pages
19-24
ISSN
  • 0003-1305 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-2731
OpenAlex
W2069523442
Cited by
2,046
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 213 · 2025: 104 · 2024: 80 · 2023: 97 · 2022: 111 · 2021: 111 · 2020: 124 · 2019: 131 · 2018: 103 · 2017: 87 · 2016: 90 · 2015: 79 · 2014: 84 · 2013: 89 · 2012: 79
FWCI
42.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The American Statistician (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
statistical power, non-significant results, experimental design

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