{PRDA} allows performing a prospective or retrospective design analysis to evaluate inferential risks (i.e., power, Type M error, and Type S error) in a study considering Pearson’s correlation between two variables or mean comparisons (one-sample, paired, two-sample, and Welch’s t-test).
For an introduction to design analysis and a general overview of the package see vignette("PRDA"). Examples for retrospective design analysis and prospective design analysis are provided in vignette("retrospective") and vignette("prospective") respectively.
Installation
You can install the development version from GitHub with:
# install.packages("devtools") devtools::install_github("ClaudioZandonella/PRDAbeta", ref = "develop", build_vignettes = TRUE)
The Package
{PRDA} package can be used for Pearson’s correlation between two variables or mean comparisons (one-sample, paired, two-sample, and Welch’s t-test) considering a hypothetical value of ρ or Cohen’s d respectively. See vignette("retrospective") and vignette("prospective") to know how to set function arguments for the different effect types.
Functions
In {PRDA} there are two main functions retrospective() and prospective().
• retrospective()
Given the hypothetical population effect size and the study sample size, the function retrospective() performs a retrospective design analysis. According to the defined alternative hypothesis and the significance level, the inferential risks (i.e., Power level, Type M error, and Type S error) are computed together with the critical effect value (i.e., the minimum absolute effect size value that would result significant).
Consider a study that evaluated the correlation between two variables with a sample of 30 subjects. Suppose that according to the literature the hypothesized effect is ρ = .25. To evaluate the inferential risks related to the study we use the function retrospective().
retrospective(effect_size = .25, sample_n1 = 30, effect_type = "correlation", test_method = "pearson", seed = 2020) #> #> Design Analysis #> #> Hypothesized effect: rho = 0.25 #> #> Study characteristics: #> test_method sample_n1 sample_n2 alternative sig_level df #> pearson 30 NULL two_sided 0.05 28 #> #> Inferential risks: #> power typeM typeS #> 0.27 1.826 0.003 #> #> Critical value(s): rho = ± 0.361
In this case, the statistical power is almost 30% and the associated Type M error and Type S error are respectively around 1.80 and 0.003. That means, statistical significant results are on average an overestimation of 80% of the hypothesized population effect and there is a .3% of probability to obtain a statistically significant result in the opposite direction.
To know more about function arguments and further examples see the function documentation ?retrospective and vignette("retrospective").
• prospective()
Given the hypothetical population effect size and the required power level, the function prospective() performs a prospective design analysis. According to the defined alternative hypothesis and the significance level, the required sample size is computed together with the associated Type M error, Type S error, and the critical effect value (i.e., the minimum absolute effect size value that would result significant).
Consider a study that will evaluate the correlation between two variables. Knowing from the literature that we expect an effect size of ρ = .25, the function prospective() can be used to compute the required sample size to obtain a power of 80%.
prospective(effect_size = .25, power = .80, effect_type = "correlation", test_method = "pearson", display_message = FALSE, seed = 2020) #> #> Design Analysis #> #> Hypothesized effect: rho = 0.25 #> #> Study characteristics: #> test_method sample_n1 sample_n2 alternative sig_level df #> pearson 126 NULL two_sided 0.05 124 #> #> Inferential risks: #> power typeM typeS #> 0.807 1.107 0 #> #> Critical value(s): rho = ± 0.175
The required sample size is n = 126, the associated Type M error is around 1.10 and the Type S error is approximately 0.
To know more about function arguments and further examples see the function documentation ?prospective and vignette("prospective").
Hypothetical effect size
The hypothetical population effect size can be defined as a single value according to previous results in the literature or experts indications. Alternatively, {PRDA} allows users to specify a distribution of plausible values to account for their uncertainty about the hypothetical population effect size. To know how to specify the hypothetical effect size according to a distribution and an example of application see vignette("retrospective").
Bugs and New Features
To propose a new feature or report a bug, please open an issue on GitHub.
Citation
To cite {PRDA} in publications use:
Claudio Zandonella Callegher, Massimiliano Pastore, Angela Andreella, Anna Vesely, Enrico Toffalini, Giulia Bertoldo, & Gianmarco Altoè. (2020). PRDA: Prospective and Retrospective Design Analysis (Version v0.1). Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3630733
A BibTeX entry for LaTeX users is
@Misc{,
title = {{PRDA}: Prospective and Retrospective Design Analysis},
author = {Claudio {Zandonella Callegher} and Massimiliano Pastore and Angela Andreella and Anna Vesely and Enrico Toffalini and Giulia Bertoldo and Gianmarco Altoè},
year = {2020},
publisher = {Zenodo},
version = {v0.1},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.3630733},
url = {https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3630733},
}References
Altoè, Gianmarco, Giulia Bertoldo, Claudio Zandonella Callegher, Enrico Toffalini, Antonio Calcagnì, Livio Finos, and Massimiliano Pastore. 2020. “Enhancing Statistical Inference in Psychological Research via Prospective and Retrospective Design Analysis.” Frontiers in Psychology 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02893.
Bertoldo, Giulia, Claudio Zandonella Callegher, and Gianmarco Altoè. 2020. “Designing Studies and Evaluating Research Results: Type M and Type S Errors for Pearson Correlation Coefficient.” Preprint. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/q9f86.
Gelman, Andrew, and John Carlin. 2014. “Beyond Power Calculations: Assessing Type S (Sign) and Type M (Magnitude) Errors.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9 (6): 641–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614551642.
