The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Statistical Power Analysis in Wildlife Research
Open accessAbstract
(Uploaded by Plazi for the Bat Literature Project) Statistical power analysis can be used to increase the efficiency of research efforts and to clarify research results. Power analysis is most valuable in the design or planning phases of research efforts. Such prospective (a priori) power analyses can be used to guide research design and to estimate the number of samples necessary to achieve a high probability of detecting biologically significant effects. Retrospective (a posteriori) power analysis has been advocated as a method to increase information about hypothesis tests that were not rejected. However, estimating power for tests of null hypotheses that were not rejected with the effect size observed in the study is incorrect; these power estimates will always be 50.50 when bias adjusted and have no relation to true power. Therefore, retrospective power estimates based on the observed effect size for hypothesis tests that were not rejected are misleading; retrospective power estimates are only meaningful when based on effect sizes other than the observed effect size, such as those effect sizes hypothesized to be biologically significant. Retrospective power analysis can be used effectively to estimate the number of samples or effect size that would have been necessary for a completed study to have rejected a specific null hypothesis. Simply presenting confidence intervals can provide additional information about null hypotheses that were not rejected, including information about the size of the true effect and whether or not there is adequate evidence to "accept" a null hypothesis as true. We suggest that (1) statistical power analyses be routinely incorporated into research planning efforts to increase their efficiency, (2) confidence intervals be used in lieu of retrospective power analyses for null hypotheses that were not rejected to assess the likely size of the true effect, (3) minimum biologically significant effect sizes be used for all power analyses, and (4) if retrospective power estimates are to be reported, then the a-level, effect sizes, and sample sizes used in calculations must also be reported.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cites
Cohen, J. (1992) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783 · Cited by 5,870
Richardson, J. T. E. (1996) · Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers · doi:10.3758/bf03203631 · Cited by 103
Cited by
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193146 · Cited by 65,971
The Abuse of Power: The Pervasive Fallacy of Power Calculations for Data Analysis
Hoenig, J. M., & Heisey, D. M. (2001) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1198/000313001300339897 · Cited by 2,046
Bayesian estimation supersedes the t-test
Kruschke, J. K. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0029146 · Cited by 1,530
Life after logging: reconciling wildlife conservation and production forestry in Indonesian Borneo
E., M., D., S., R., N., D., A., B., R., D., I., T., S., A., L., I., R., A., W., et al. (2005) · Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) eBooks · doi:10.17528/cifor/001663 · Cited by 296
Dutton, A., Romeis, J., & Bigler, F. (2003) · BioControl · doi:10.1023/a:1026313719424 · Cited by 170
Metadata
- Authors
- Steidl, R. J., Hayes, J. P., & Schauber, E.
- Venue
- The Journal of Wildlife Management
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1997-04
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 270
- ISSN
- 0022-541X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2080465551
- Cited by
- 420
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 19.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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: Statistical Power Analysis in Wildlife Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3802582
- The paper
- Steidl, R. J., Hayes, J. P., & Schauber, E. (1997). Statistical Power Analysis in Wildlife Research. The Journal of Wildlife Management. https://doi.org/10.2307/3802582
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.