So a bad, tiny sample size DOES make a study reliable?
-
Here's a bonafide expert giving an idea on how large a sample you'd needhttps://mobile.twitter.com/kph3k/status/1087448026648641540 …
-
-
What kind of sample size would you need then? What's the conventional wisdom?
-
You need a sample size that gives you high power. The problem with low n studies has been that they have had low power, and thus if they find anything, it's quite likely to be a false positive, rather than a true positive.
-
A sample of 53 would imply low power though? what kind of size samples would you need in these studies to identify an effect?
-
Depends what we are talking about. If we are talking about detecting a ~2/3d difference in PGS between the two groups, the power is extremely high.
-
GxE for intelligence, there are a lot of null findings and even the reverse (heritability of intelligence increasing with decreased environmental quality). Last genetic evidence shows that environmental differences barely affects genetic expression (0,02)https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/evidence-for-the-scarrrowe-effect-on-genetic-expressivity-in-a-large-us-sample/A428EBF64787D00B3A37DDA61D41D967 …
- 1 more reply
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.