PreprintCited by 1Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Sample size and power calculations for causal inference of observational studies

Open access
Liu, Bo, Yang, Chengxin, Li, Fan·2025·arXiv

Abstract

This paper investigates the theoretical foundation and develops analytical formulas for sample size and power calculations for causal inference with observational data. By analyzing the variance of an inverse probability weighting estimator of the average treatment effect, we decompose the power calculation into three components: propensity score distribution, potential outcome distribution, and their correlation. We show that to determine the minimal sample size of an observational study, in addition to the standard inputs in the power calculation of randomized trials, it is sufficient to have two parameters, which quantify the strength of the confounder-treatment and the confounder-outcome association, respectively. For the former, we propose using the Bhattacharyya coefficient, which measures the covariate overlap and, together with the treatment proportion, leads to a uniquely identifiable and easily computable propensity score distribution. For the latter, we propose a sensitivity parameter bounded by the R-squared statistic of the regression of the outcome on covariates. Our procedure relies on a parametric propensity score model and a semiparametric restricted mean outcome model, but does not require distributional assumptions on the multivariate covariates. We develop an associated R package PSpower and an online calculator.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2501.11181

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 1

Authors
Liu, B., Yang, C., & Li, F.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4406734267
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
sample size determination, statistical power, causal inference, observational studies, inverse probability weighting, average treatment effect, propensity score, Bhattacharyya coefficient, covariate overlap, sensitivity parameter

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