I think it's just a bit funny that we ask people to do these calculations, and everyone does, but the reality is that funding is the primary driver for study size in the majority of research
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
- Show replies
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As someone who recently "justified" a sample size by screwing around on an online calculator until it gave me the number I wanted, this is pretty reassuring to see.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Authors be like If funding provided < funding required to enrol required n, then do not report power calculation in manuscript
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
My impression from 2 removes away is that if animals are involved, sample size calculation is critical and kept to a firm minimum.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Honestly I just like the number 250.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I find it funny/maddening when I am asked to provide a sample size calculation for a whole of population study, when a power calculation has been provided.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I really wish papers would say things like “We had funding for 500 participants. Given other features of the data, we therefore have >80% for effects ranging from .xx to .xx”.
-
We tried doing this but reviewers were not really happy with our arguments

- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.