样本大小的确定_显着功效样本大小效应大小之间的关系

样本大小的确定

Congratulations, your experiment has yielded significant results! You can be sure (well, 95% sure) that the independent variable influenced your dependent variable. I guess all you have left to do is write up your discussion and submit your results to a scholarly journal. Right…………?

Çongratulations，实验取得了显著的结果！ 您可以肯定(95％确信)自变量影响了您的因变量。 我想您剩下要做的就是写下您的讨论，然后将结果提交给学术期刊。 对…………？

Obtaining significant results is a tremendous accomplishment in itself self but it does not tell the entire story behind your results. I want to take this time and discuss statistical significance, sample size, statistical power, and effect size, all of which have an enormous impact on how we interpret our results.

获得重大成果本身就是一项巨大的成就，但并不能说明结果背后的全部故事。 我想借此时间讨论统计显着性，样本量，统计功效和效应量，所有这些因素对我们解释结果的方式产生巨大影响。

显着性(p = 0.05) (Significance (p = 0.05))

First and foremost, let’s discuss statistical significance as it forms the cornerstone of inferential statistics. We’ll discuss significance in the context of true experiments as it is the most relevant and easily understood. A true experiment is used to test a specific hypothesis(s) we have regarding the causal relationship between one or many variables. Specifically, we hypothesize that one or more variables (ie. independent variables) produce a change in another variable (ie. dependent variable). The change is our inferred causality. If you would like to learn more about the various research design types visit my article (LINK).

首先，让我们讨论统计意义，因为统计意义构成推理统计的基础。 我们将在真实实验的背景下讨论重要性，因为它是最相关且最容易理解的。 一个真实的实验用于检验关于一个或多个变量之间因果关系的特定假设。 具体而言，我们假设一个或多个变量(即自变量)在另一个变量(即因变量)中产生了变化。 变化是我们推断的因果关系。 如果您想了解有关各种研究设计类型的更多信息，请访问我的文章( LINK )。

For example, we want to test a hypothesis that an authoritative teaching style will produce higher test scores in students. In order to accurately test this hypothesis, we randomly select 2 groups of students that get randomly placed into one of two classrooms. One classroom is taught by an authoritarian teacher and one taught by an authoritative teacher. Throughout the semester, we collect all the test scores among all the classrooms. At the end of the year, we average all the scores to produce a grand average for each classroom. Let’s assume the average test score for the authoritarian classroom was 80%, and the authoritative classroom was 88%. It would seem your hypothesis was correct, the students taught by the authoritative teacher scored on average 8% higher on their tests compared to the students taught by the authoritarian teacher. However, what if we ran this experiment 100 times, each time with different groups of students do you think we would obtain similar results? What is the likelihood that this effect of teaching style on student test scores occurred by chance or another latent (ie. unmeasured) variable? Last but not least, is 8% considered “high enough” to be that different from 80%?

例如，我们要检验一个假设，即一种权威的教学风格会在学生中产生更高的考试成绩。 为了准确检验该假设，我们随机选择两组学生，将其随机分配到两个教室之一中。 一间教室由一位威权老师教，一间教室由一位权