Section 5.3: Power

Fundamentals of Social Statistics by Adam J. McKee

Much of the emphasis in traditional statistical texts is on preventing Type I errors.  Little concern seems to be given to the prevention of Type II errors.  Type II errors are prevented when a statistical test has sufficient power.  In hypothesis testing, power is the ability of a statistic to detect a significant relationship when one exists.  That is, it is the ability of the statistic to correctly reject the null hypothesis.

Power is the ability of a test statistic to detect a significant relationship between variables when one exists in the population.

Factors Affecting Statistical Power

Statistical power is crucial in hypothesis testing as it determines the likelihood that a test will detect a genuine effect when one truly exists. Enhancing the power of a statistical test minimizes the chances of making a Type II error, thus ensuring that genuine effects aren’t overlooked. Several factors influence the power of a test, and understanding their implications can lead to more insightful and accurate results. These factors include the strength of the relationship between variables (effect size), the predetermined rejection level for the test (alpha level), and the sample size.

Effect Size

Effect size plays a pivotal role in statistical analyses, serving as an indicator of the magnitude or strength of the relationship between variables. In essence, it quantifies the size of the difference or relationship, transcending mere statistical significance to offer a more in-depth understanding of the results. When the effect size is larger, it generally implies a more pronounced relationship between the variables being studied. This larger effect size not only enhances the statistical power of a test, making it easier to uncover genuine relationships, but also aids in the interpretation and understanding of the data, especially when other factors are less than ideal.

In the domains of psychology, social sciences, and many other fields, the importance of effect size becomes even more pronounced. While statistical significance can indicate whether an effect or relationship exists, it doesn’t necessarily convey the real-world importance or the practical impact of that relationship. For instance, a study might find a statistically significant relationship between two variables, but if the effect size is trivial, the practical implications of that finding could be minimal. On the other hand, a substantial effect size can suggest that the observed relationship is not only statistically significant but also practically meaningful, warranting further attention and investigation.

Therefore, for researchers and scholars, effect size offers a dual advantage. First, it boosts the statistical power of a test, ensuring more reliable outcomes. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it provides clarity regarding the practical significance of results. By focusing on effect size, researchers can move beyond mere statistical jargon and convey findings in a manner that emphasizes their real-world importance, thereby making their research more accessible and impactful to a broader audience.

Alpha Level

The alpha level, commonly denoted by values such as 0.05 or 0.01, serves as a pivotal criterion in hypothesis testing. This threshold represents the probability of observing the collected data (or more extreme data) under the assumption that the null hypothesis is true. When researchers select a smaller alpha level, like 0.01, they are essentially demanding more robust evidence before they are willing to reject the null hypothesis. This rigorousness inherently minimizes the chances of committing a Type I error, which involves erroneously rejecting a true null hypothesis, thus offering a safeguard against drawing incorrect conclusions based on random variations in the sample.

Balancing the Alpha-Level Decision

However, the selection of the alpha level is a delicate balancing act. While the appeal of a smaller alpha level lies in its conservative nature, this conservatism comes with potential pitfalls. By setting a stricter threshold, the statistical test becomes less sensitive to actual effects present in the data, thereby reducing its power. This means that researchers might inadvertently fail to identify genuine relationships or effects, even if they exist. Overlooking such genuine effects can have implications, especially in fields where understanding these effects is crucial for decision-making. Consequently, researchers must weigh the benefits of minimizing false positives against the risk of missing true effects when determining the most appropriate alpha level for their study.

Sample Size

Sample size plays an indispensable role in the realm of hypothesis testing. Essentially, as the sample size increases, the statistical test gains more power, enhancing its ability to detect genuine effects or relationships. Larger samples provide a more accurate representation of the population, reducing the influence of random variations or anomalies. This precision aids in producing results that are closer to the true values in the population, which, in turn, boosts the reliability of the study.

But there’s more to consider than just aiming for larger samples. An adequately sized sample can yield statistically significant results even if the effect size—the actual magnitude of difference or relationship—is small. This means that, with a substantial enough sample size, even trivial differences can be detected as statistically significant. As such, while a large sample can certainly refine the accuracy of a study, it’s crucial for researchers to also evaluate the practical significance of the results, ensuring they’re not just statistically noteworthy but also meaningful in real-world contexts.

Limits of Expanding Sample Size with Systematic Bias

Increasing the sample size in research is often seen as a straightforward way to enhance the power of a statistical test. A larger sample can provide more accurate estimates and make it easier to detect even subtle effects. However, if systematic bias is present in the study, merely expanding the sample size may not improve, and could even exacerbate, the accuracy of the results. Systematic bias refers to consistent, non-random errors in a study that can distort the outcomes. For instance, if a survey consistently underrepresents a particular demographic due to biased sampling methods, simply surveying more people won’t correct this skew. In fact, with a larger sample, the results might appear more “statistically significant” while still being fundamentally flawed due to the underlying bias. Thus, before opting to increase sample size, it’s essential to ensure that the research methodology is sound and free from systematic biases that could compromise the validity of the results.

Selecting a Sample Size

Determining the optimal sample size in research is a nuanced task that hinges on various considerations. For researchers, this choice is deeply entwined with practical factors such as budget constraints and the time required for data collection. Picking a substantial sample, like 10,000 participants, would almost assuredly enhance the test’s statistical power, making it easier to identify genuine effects or differences. However, the logistical and financial challenges associated with such a large sample are frequently prohibitive. Large-scale data collection can be expensive, time-consuming, and may require additional resources like staff and equipment.

Consequently, researchers are faced with the pivotal task of balancing statistical robustness with feasibility. While a more significant sample would ideally be preferred from a purely statistical standpoint, real-world constraints often necessitate compromise. To navigate this intricate balance, researchers typically resort to power analyses. This analytical method aids in determining a sample size that offers adequate power for the study while remaining manageable in terms of cost and logistics. As consumers or evaluators of research, it’s essential to critically assess the chosen sample size, especially when the reported findings are not statistically significant. A limited sample could be a reason for the absence of noticeable effects, prompting the question of whether the results would differ with a more extensive participant pool.


Statistical power is integral to hypothesis testing and determines the test’s capacity to identify a genuine effect. Power reflects the test’s ability to rightly reject the null hypothesis when a significant relationship is present between variables. The strength of this relationship is denoted by the effect size, which measures the magnitude or significance of the relationship. A larger effect size usually indicates a more substantial relationship, which is vital for understanding the practical implications of research results, beyond mere statistical significance.

In hypothesis testing, the alpha level, often set at 0.05 or 0.01, is the predetermined threshold that guides when to reject the null hypothesis. A stricter alpha level requires stronger evidence but can reduce the test’s sensitivity, leading to potentially overlooked genuine effects. Conversely, the sample size influences the test’s power, with larger samples improving accuracy and reliability. However, selecting an appropriate sample size involves balancing statistical rigor with practical considerations like cost and logistics. While expanding sample size can refine accuracy, if systematic bias exists—consistent, non-random errors—merely enlarging the sample won’t rectify this. Hence, ensuring research methods are free from such biases is crucial.

[ Back | Contents | Next ]

Last Modified:  09/25/2023

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.