Testing for Underpowered Literatures
检验研究文献是否统计功效不足AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要研究干预治疗效应的实验检验功效,并应用于经济学随机对照试验。
检验研究文献是否统计功效不足AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
How many experimental studies would have come to different conclusions had they been run on larger samples? I show how to estimate the expected number of statistically significant results that a set of experiments would have reported had their sample sizes all been counterfactually increased. The proposed deconvolution estimator is asymptotically normal and adjusts for publication bias. Unlike related methods, this approach requires no assumptions of any kind about the distribution of true intervention treatment effects and allows for point masses. Simulations find good coverage even when the t-score is only approximately normal. An application to randomized trials (RCTs) published in economics journals finds that doubling every sample would increase the power of t-tests by 7.2 percentage points on average. This effect is smaller than for non-RCTs and comparable to systematic replications in laboratory psychology where previous studies enabled more accurate power calculations. This suggests that RCTs are on average relatively insensitive to sample size increases. Research funders who wish to raise power should generally consider sponsoring better-measured and higher quality experiments -- rather than only larger ones.