Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

A test is not a test

Nature Reviews Neuroscience volume 14, page 877 (2013)Cite this article

Subjects

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

In their Analysis article (Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 14, 365–376 (2013))1, Button et al. state that insufficient statistical power owing to insufficient sample size undermines the reliability of findings in neuroscience. The authors rely on an earlier publication2 for this statement. Although it is obvious that a small sample size increases the risk of missing an existing effect, these authors question the reliability of significant findings in cases of insufficient power.

In both papers, concepts from diagnostic testing are applied to statistical testing in basic research. In this different context, a test's positive predictive value (PPV) turns into the reliability of a significant statistical effect. However, the size of the critical effect of test sensitivity (or statistical power) on the PPV (or the reliability of significant findings) depends on prevalence (or the odds of effects among tested effects) and becomes negligible if prevalence is high (Box 1).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Button, K. S. et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 14, 365–376 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ioannidis, J. P. A. et al. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2, e124 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epileptology, University of Bonn Medical Centre, Bonn, 25 53105, Germany

    Christian Hoppe

Authors
  1. Christian Hoppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Hoppe.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hoppe, C. A test is not a test. Nat Rev Neurosci 14, 877 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475-c5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3475-c5

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing