# When Exact Replications Are Too Exact: The Lucky-Bounce-Test for Pairs of Exact Replication Studies

Imagine an NBA player has an 80% chance to make one free throw. What is the chance that he makes both free throws? The correct answer is 64% (80% * 80%).

Now consider the possibility that it is possible to distinguish between two types of free throws. Some free throws are good; they don’t touch the rim and make a swishing sound when they go through the net (all net). The other free throws bounce of the rim and go in (rattling in).

What is the probability that an NBA player with an 80% free throw percentage makes a free throw that is all net or rattles in? It is more likely that an NBA player with an 80% free throw average makes a perfect free throw because a free throw that rattles in could easily have bounded the wrong way, which would lower the free throw percentage. To achieve an 80% free throw percentage, most free throws have to be close to perfect.

Let’s say the probability of hitting the rim and going in is 30%. With an 80% free throw average, this means that the majority of free throws are in the close-to-perfect category (20% misses, 30% rattle-in, 50% close-to-perfect).

What does this have to do with science? A lot!

The reason is that the outcome of a scientific study is a bit like throwing free throws. One factor that contributes to a successful study is skill (making correct predictions, avoiding experimenter errors, and conducting studies with high statistical power). However, another factor is random (a lucky or unlucky bounce).

The concept of statistical power is similar to an NBA players’ free throw percentage. A researcher who conducts studies with 80% statistical power is going to have an 80% success rate (that is, if all predictions are correct). In the remaining 20% of studies, a study will not produce a statistically significant result, which is equivalent to missing a free throw and not getting a point.

Many years ago, Jacob Cohen observed that researchers often conduct studies with relatively low power to produce a statistically significant result. Let’s just assume right now that a researcher conducts studies with 60% power. This means, researchers would be like NBA players with a 60% free-throw average.

Now imagine that researchers have to demonstrate an effect not only once, but also a second time in an exact replication study. That is researchers have to make two free throws in a row. With 60% power, the probability to get two significant results in a row is only 36% (60% * 60%). Moreover, many of the freethrows that are made rattle in rather than being all net. The percentages are about 40% misses, 30% rattling in and 30% all net.

One major difference between NBA players and scientists is that NBA players have to demonstrate their abilities in front of large crowds and TV cameras, whereas scientists conduct their studies in private.

Imagine an NBA player could just go into a private room, throw two free throws and then report back how many free throws he made and the outcome of these free throws determine who wins game 7 in the playoff finals. Would you trust the player to tell the truth?

If you would not trust the NBA player, why would you trust scientists to report failed studies? You should not.

It can be demonstrated statistically that scientists are reporting more successes than the power of their studies would justify (Sterling et al., 1995; Schimmack, 2012). Amongst scientists this fact is well known, but the general public may not fully appreciate the fact that a pair of exact replication studies with significant results is often just a selection of studies that included failed studies that were not reported.

Fortunately, it is possible to use statistics to examine whether the results of a pair of studies are likely to be honest or whether failed studies were excluded. The reason is that an amateur is not only more likely to miss a free throw. An amateur is also less likely to make a perfect free throw.

Based on the theory of statistical power developed by Nyman and Pearson and popularized by Jacob Cohen, it is possible to make predictions about the relative frequency of p-values in the non-significant (failure), just significant (rattling in), and highly significant (all net) ranges.

As for made-free-throws, the distinction between lucky and clear successes is somewhat arbitrary because power is continuous. A study with a p-value of .0499 is very lucky because p = .501 would have been not significant (rattled in after three bounces on the rim). A study with p = .000001 is a clear success. Lower p-values are better, but where to draw the line?

As it turns out, Jacob Cohen’s recommendation to conduct studies with 80% power provides a useful criterion to distinguish lucky outcomes and clear successes.

Imagine a scientist conducts studies with 80% power. The distribution of observed test-statistics (e.g. z-scores) shows that this researcher has a 20% chance to get a non-significant result, a 30% chance to get a lucky significant result (p-value between .050 and .005), and a 50% chance to get a clear significant result (p < .005). If the 20% failed studies are hidden, the percentage of results that rattled in versus studies with all-net results are 37 vs. 63%. However, if true power is just 20% (an amateur), 80% of studies fail, 15% rattle in, and 5% are clear successes. If the 80% failed studies are hidden, only 25% of the successful studies are all-net and 75% rattle in.

One problem with using this test to draw conclusions about the outcome of a pair of exact replication studies is that true power is unknown. To avoid this problem, it is possible to compute the maximum probability of a rattling-in result. As it turns out, the optimal true power to maximize the percentage of lucky outcomes is 66% power. With true power of 66%, one would expect 34% misses (p > .05), 32% lucky successes (.050 < p < .005), and 34% clear successes (p < .005).

For a pair of exact replication studies, this means that there is only a 10% chance (32% * 32%) to get two rattle-in successes in a row. In contrast, there is a 90% chance that misses were not reported or that an honest report of successful studies would have produced at least one all-net result (z > 2.8, p < .005).

Example: Unconscious Priming Influences Behavior

I used this test to examine a famous and controversial set of exact replication studies. In Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996), Dr. Bargh reported two exact replication studies (studies 2a and 2b) that showed an effect of a subtle priming manipulation on behavior. Undergraduate students were primed with words that are stereotypically associated with old age. The researchers then measured the walking speed of primed participants (n = 15) and participants in a control group (n = 15).

The two studies were not only exact replications of each other; they also produced very similar results. Most readers probably expected this outcome because similar studies should produce similar results, but this false belief ignores the influence of random factors that are not under the control of a researcher. We do not expect lotto winners to win the lottery again because it is an entirely random and unlikely event. Experiments are different because there could be a systematic effect that makes a replication more likely, but in studies with low power results should not replicate exactly because random sampling error influences results.

Study 1: t(28) = 2.86, p = .008 (two-tailed), z = 2.66, observed power = 76%
Study 2: t(28) = 2.16, p = .039 (two-tailed), z = 2.06, observed power = 54%

The median power of these two studies is 65%. However, even if median power were lower or higher, the maximum probability of obtaining two p-values in the range between .050 and .005 remains just 10%.

Although this study has been cited over 1,000 times, replication studies are rare.

One of the few published replication studies was reported by Cesario, Plaks, and Higgins (2006). Naïve readers might take the significant results in this replication study as evidence that the effect is real. However, this study produced yet another lucky success.

Study 3: t(62) = 2.41, p = .019, z = 2.35, observed power = 65%.

The chances of obtaining three lucky successes in a row is only 3% (32% *32% * 32*). Moreover, with a median power of 65% and a reported success rate of 100%, the success rate is inflated by 35%. This suggests that the true power of the reported studies is considerably lower than the observed power of 65% and that observed power is inflated because failed studies were not reported.

The R-Index corrects for inflation by subtracting the inflation rate from observed power (65% – 35%). This means the R-Index for this set of published studies is 30%.

This R-Index can be compared to several benchmarks.

An R-Index of 22% is consistent with the null-hypothesis being true and failed attempts are not reported.

An R-Index of 40% is consistent with 30% true power and all failed attempts are not reported.

It is therefore not surprising that other researchers were not able to replicate Bargh’s original results, even though they increased statistical power by using larger samples (Pashler et al. 2011, Doyen et al., 2011).

In conclusion, it is unlikely that Dr. Bargh’s original results were the only studies that they conducted. In an interview, Dr. Bargh revealed that the studies were conducted in 1990 and 1991 and that they conducted additional studies until the publication of the two studies in 1996. Dr. Bargh did not reveal how many studies they conducted over the span of 5 years and how many of these studies failed to produce significant evidence of priming. If Dr. Bargh himself conducted studies that failed, it would not be surprising that others also failed to replicate the published results. However, in a personal email, Dr. Bargh assured me that “we did not as skeptics might presume run many studies and only reported the significant ones. We ran it once, and then ran it again (exact replication) in order to make sure it was a real effect.” With a 10% probability, it is possible that Dr. Bargh was indeed lucky to get two rattling-in findings in a row. However, his aim to demonstrate the robustness of an effect by trying to show it again in a second small study is misguided. The reason is that it is highly likely that the effect will not replicate or that the first study was already a lucky finding after some failed pilot studies. Underpowered studies cannot provide strong evidence for the presence of an effect and conducting multiple underpowered studies reduces the credibility of successes because the probability of this outcome to occur even when an effect is present decreases with each study (Schimmack, 2012). Moreover, even if Bargh was lucky to get two rattling-in results in a row, others will not be so lucky and it is likely that many other researchers tried to replicate this sensational finding, but failed to do so. Thus, publishing lucky results hurts science nearly as much as the failure to report failed studies by the original author.

Dr. Bargh also failed to realize how lucky he was to obtain his results, in his response to a published failed-replication study by Doyen. Rather than acknowledging that failures of replication are to be expected, Dr. Bargh criticized the replication study on methodological grounds. There would be a simple solution to test Dr. Bargh’s hypothesis that he is a better researcher and that his results are replicable when the study is properly conducted. He should demonstrate that he can replicate the result himself.

In an interview, Tom Bartlett asked Dr. Bargh why he didn’t conduct another replication study to demonstrate that the effect is real. Dr. Bargh’s response was that “he is aware that some critics believe he’s been pulling tricks, that he has a “special touch” when it comes to priming, a comment that sounds like a compliment but isn’t. “I don’t think anyone would believe me,” he says.” The problem for Dr. Bargh is that there is no reason to believe his original results, either. Two rattling-in results alone do not constitute evidence for an effect, especially when this result could not be replicated in an independent study. NBA players have to make free-throws in front of a large audience for a free-throw to count. If Dr. Bargh wants his findings to count, he should demonstrate his famous effect in an open replication study. To avoid embarrassment, it would be necessary to increase the power of the replication study because it is highly unlikely that even Dr. Bargh can continuously produce significant results with samples of N = 30 participants. Even if the effect is real, sampling error is simply too large to demonstrate the effect consistently. Knowledge about statistical power is power. Knowledge about post-hoc power can be used to detect incredible results. Knowledge about a priori power can be used to produce credible results.

Swish!

# Meta-Analysis of Observed Power: Comparison of Estimation Methods

Meta-Analysis of Observed Power

Citation: Dr. R (2015). Meta-analysis of observed power. R-Index Bulletin, Vol(1), A2.

In a previous blog post, I presented an introduction to the concept of observed power. Observed power is an estimate of the true power on the basis of observed effect size, sampling error, and significance criterion of a study. Yuan and Maxwell (2005) concluded that observed power is a useless construct when it is applied to a single study, mainly because sampling error in a single study is too large to obtain useful estimates of true power. However, sampling error decreases as the number of studies increases and observed power in a set of studies can provide useful information about the true power in a set of studies.

This blog post introduces various methods that can be used to estimate power on the basis of a set of studies (meta-analysis). I then present simulation studies that compare the various estimation methods in terms of their ability to estimate true power under a variety of conditions. In this blog post, I examine only unbiased sets of studies. That is, the sample of studies in a meta-analysis is a representative sample from the population of studies with specific characteristics. The first simulation assumes that samples are drawn from a population of studies with fixed effect size and fixed sampling error. As a result, all studies have the same true power (homogeneous). The second simulation assumes that all studies have a fixed effect size, but that sampling error varies across studies. As power is a function of effect size and sampling error, this simulation models heterogeneity in true power. The next simulations assume heterogeneity in population effect sizes. One simulation uses a normal distribution of effect sizes. Importantly, a normal distribution has no influence on the mean because effect sizes are symmetrically distributed around the mean effect size. The next simulations use skewed normal distributions. This simulation provides a realistic scenario for meta-analysis of heterogeneous sets of studies such as a meta-analysis of articles in a specific journal or articles on different topics published by the same author.

Observed Power Estimation Method 1: The Percentage of Significant Results

The simplest method to determine observed power is to compute the percentage of significant results. As power is defined as the long-range percentage of significant results, the percentage of significant results in a set of studies is an unbiased estimate of the long-term percentage. The main limitation of this method is that the dichotomous measure (significant versus insignificant) is likely to be imprecise when the number of studies is small. For example, two studies can only show observed power values of 0, 25%, 50%, or 100%, even if true power were 75%. However, the percentage of significant results plays an important role in bias tests that examine whether a set of studies is representative. When researchers hide non-significant results or use questionable research methods to produce significant results, the percentage of significant results will be higher than the percentage of significant results that could have been obtained on the basis of the actual power to produce significant results.

Observed Power Estimation Method 2: The Median

Schimmack (2012) proposed to average observed power of individual studies to estimate observed power. Yuan and Maxwell (2005) demonstrated that the average of observed power is a biased estimator of true power. It overestimates power when power is less than 50% and it underestimates true power when power is above 50%. Although the bias is not large (no more than 10 percentage points), Yuan and Maxwell (2005) proposed a method that produces an unbiased estimate of power in a meta-analysis of studies with the same true power (exact replication studies). Unlike the average that is sensitive to skewed distributions, the median provides an unbiased estimate of true power because sampling error is equally likely (50:50 probability) to inflate or deflate the observed power estimate. To avoid the bias of averaging observed power, Schimmack (2014) used median observed power to estimate the replicability of a set of studies.

Observed Power Estimation Method 3: P-Curve’s KS Test

Another method is implemented in Simonsohn’s (2014) pcurve. Pcurve was developed to obtain an unbiased estimate of a population effect size from a biased sample of studies. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to determine the power of studies because bias is a function of power. The pcurve estimation uses an iterative approach that tries out different values of true power. For each potential value of true power, it computes the location (quantile) of observed test statistics relative to a potential non-centrality parameter. The best fitting non-centrality parameter is located in the middle of the observed test statistics. Once a non-central distribution has been found, it is possible to assign each observed test-value a cumulative percentile of the non-central distribution. For the actual non-centrality parameter, these percentiles have a uniform distribution. To find the best fitting non-centrality parameter from a set of possible parameters, pcurve tests whether the distribution of observed percentiles follows a uniform distribution using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The non-centrality parameter with the smallest test statistics is then used to estimate true power.

Observed Power Estimation Method 4: P-Uniform

van Assen, van Aert, and Wicherts (2014) developed another method to estimate observed power. Their method is based on the use of the gamma distribution. Like the pcurve method, this method relies on the fact that observed test-statistics should follow a uniform distribution when a potential non-centrality parameter matches the true non-centrality parameter. P-uniform transforms the probabilities given a potential non-centrality parameter with a negative log-function (-log[x]). These values are summed. When probabilities form a uniform distribution, the sum of the log-transformed probabilities matches the number of studies. Thus, the value with the smallest absolute discrepancy between the sum of negative log-transformed percentages and the number of studies provides the estimate of observed power.

Observed Power Estimation Method 5: Averaging Standard Normal Non-Centrality Parameter

In addition to these existing methods, I introduce to novel estimation methods. The first new method converts observed test statistics into one-sided p-values. These p-values are then transformed into z-scores. This approach has a long tradition in meta-analysis that was developed by Stouffer et al. (1949). It was popularized by Rosenthal during the early days of meta-analysis (Rosenthal, 1979). Transformation of probabilities into z-scores makes it easy to aggregate probabilities because z-scores follow a symmetrical distribution. The average of these z-scores can be used as an estimate of the actual non-centrality parameter. The average z-score can then be used to estimate true power. This approach avoids the problem of averaging power estimates that power has a skewed distribution. Thus, it should provide an unbiased estimate of true power when power is homogenous across studies.

Observed Power Estimation Method 6: Yuan-Maxwell Correction of Average Observed Power

Yuan and Maxwell (2005) demonstrated a simple average of observed power is systematically biased. However, a simple average avoids the problems of transforming the data and can produce tighter estimates than the median method. Therefore I explored whether it is possible to apply a correction to the simple average. The correction is based on Yuan and Maxwell’s (2005) mathematically derived formula for systematic bias. After averaging observed power, Yuan and Maxwell’s formula for bias is used to correct the estimate for systematic bias. The only problem with this approach is that bias is a function of true power. However, as observed power becomes an increasingly good estimator of true power in the long run, the bias correction will also become increasingly better at correcting the right amount of bias.

The Yuan-Maxwell correction approach is particularly promising for meta-analysis of heterogeneous sets of studies such as sets of diverse studies in a journal. The main advantage of this method is that averaging of power makes no assumptions about the distribution of power across different studies (Schimmack, 2012). The main limitation of averaging power was the systematic bias, but Yuan and Maxwell’s formula makes it possible to reduce this systematic bias, while maintaining the advantage of having a method that can be applied to heterogeneous sets of studies.

RESULTS

Homogeneous Effect Sizes and Sample Sizes

The first simulation used 100 effect sizes ranging from .01 to 1.00 and 50 sample sizes ranging from 11 to 60 participants per condition (Ns = 22 to 120), yielding 5000 different populations of studies. The true power of these studies was determined on the basis of the effect size, sample size, and the criterion p < .025 (one-tailed), which is equivalent to .05 (two-tailed). Sample sizes were chosen so that average power across the 5,000 studies was 50%. The simulation drew 10 random samples from each of the 5,000 populations of studies. Each sample of a study simulated a between-subject design with the given population effect size and sample size. The results were stored as one-tailed p-values. For the meta-analysis p-values were converted into z-scores. To avoid biases due to extreme outliers, z-scores greater than 5 were set to 5 (observed power = .999).

The six estimation methods were then used to compute observed power on the basis of samples of 10 studies. The following figures show observed power as a function of true power. The green lines show the 95% confidence interval for different levels of true power. The figure also includes red dashed lines for a value of 50% power. Studies with more than 50% observed power would be significant. Studies with less than 50% observed power would be non-significant. The figures also include a blue line for 80% true power. Cohen (1988) recommended that researchers should aim for a minimum of 80% power. It is instructive how accurate estimation methods are in evaluating whether a set of studies met this criterion.

The histogram shows the distribution of true power across the 5,000 populations of studies.

The histogram shows that the simulation covers the full range of power. It also shows that high-powered studies are overrepresented because moderate to large effect sizes can achieve high power for a wide range of sample sizes. The distribution is not important for the evaluation of different estimation methods and benefits all estimation methods equally because observed power is a good estimator of true power when true power is close to the maximum (Yuan & Maxwell, 2005).

The next figure shows scatterplots of observed power as a function of true power. Values above the diagonal indicate that observed power overestimates true power. Values below the diagonal show that observed power underestimates true power.

Visual inspection of the plots suggests that all methods provide unbiased estimates of true power. Another observation is that the count of significant results provides the least accurate estimates of true power. The reason is simply that aggregation of dichotomous variables requires a large number of observations to approximate true power. The third observation is that visual inspection provides little information about the relative accuracy of the other methods. Finally, the plots show how accurate observed power estimates are in meta-analysis of 10 studies. When true power is 50%, estimates very rarely exceed 80%. Similarly, when true power is above 80%, observed power is never below 50%. Thus, observed power can be used to examine whether a set of studies met Cohen’s recommended guidelines to conduct studies with a minimum of 80% power. If observed power is 50%, it is nearly certain that the studies did not have the recommended 80% power.

To examine the relative accuracy of different estimation methods quantitatively, I computed bias scores (observed power – true power). As bias can overestimate and underestimate true power, the standard deviation of these bias scores can be used to quantify the precision of various estimation methods. In addition, I present the mean to examine whether a method has large sample accuracy (i.e. the bias approaches zero as the number of simulations increases). I also present the percentage of studies with no more than 20% points bias. Although 20% bias may seem large, it is not important to estimate power with very high precision. When observed power is below 50%, it suggests that a set of studies was underpowered even if the observed power estimate is an underestimation.

The quantitative analysis also shows no meaningful differences among the estimation methods. The more interesting question is how these methods perform under more challenging conditions when the set of studies are no longer exact replication studies with fixed power.

Homogeneous Effect Size, Heterogeneous Sample Sizes

The next simulation simulated variation in sample sizes. For each population of studies, sample sizes were varied by multiplying a particular sample size by factors of 1 to 5.5 (1.0, 1.5,2.0…,5.5). Thus, a base-sample-size of 40 created a range of sample sizes from 40 to 220. A base-sample size of 100 created a range of sample sizes from 100 to 2,200. As variation in sample sizes increases the average sample size, the range of effect sizes was limited to a range from .004 to .4 and effect sizes were increased in steps of d = .004. The histogram shows the distribution of power in the 5,000 population of studies.

The simulation covers the full range of true power, although studies with low and very high power are overrepresented.

The results are visually not distinguishable from those in the previous simulation.

The quantitative comparison of the estimation methods also shows very similar results.

In sum, all methods perform well even when true power varies as a function of variation in sample sizes. This conclusion may not generalize to more extreme simulations of variation in sample sizes, but more extreme variations in sample sizes would further increase the average power of a set of studies because the average sample size would increase as well. Thus, variation in effect sizes poses a more realistic challenge for the different estimation methods.

Heterogeneous, Normally Distributed Effect Sizes

The next simulation used a random normal distribution of true effect sizes. Effect sizes were simulated to have a reasonable but large variation. Starting effect sizes ranged from .208 to 1.000 and increased in increments of .008. Sample sizes ranged from 10 to 60 and increased in increments of 2 to create 5,000 populations of studies. For each population of studies, effect sizes were sampled randomly from a normal distribution with a standard deviation of SD = .2. Extreme effect sizes below d = -.05 were set to -.05 and extreme effect sizes above d = 1.20 were set to 1.20. The first histogram of effect sizes shows the 50,000 population effect sizes. The histogram on the right shows the distribution of true power for the 5,000 sets of 10 studies.

The plots of observed and true power show that the estimation methods continue to perform rather well even when population effect sizes are heterogeneous and normally distributed.

The quantitative comparison suggests that puniform has some problems with heterogeneity. More detailed studies are needed to examine whether this is a persistent problem for puniform, but given the good performance of the other methods it seems easier to use these methods.

Heterogeneous, Skewed Normal Effect Sizes

The next simulation puts the estimation methods to a stronger challenge by introducing skewed distributions of population effect sizes. For example, a set of studies may contain mostly small to moderate effect sizes, but a few studies examined large effect sizes. To simulated skewed effect size distributions, I used the rsnorm function of the fGarch package. The function creates a random distribution with a specified mean, standard deviation, and skew. I set the mean to d = .2, the standard deviation to SD = .2, and skew to 2. The histograms show the distribution of effect sizes and the distribution of true power for the 5,000 sets of studies (k = 10).

This time the results show differences between estimation methods in the ability of various estimation methods to deal with skewed heterogeneity. The percentage of significant results is unbiased, but is imprecise due to the problem of averaging dichotomous variables. The other methods show systematic deviations from the 95% confidence interval around the true parameter. Visual inspection suggests that the Yuan-Maxwell correction method has the best fit.

This impression is confirmed in quantitative analyses of bias. The quantitative comparison confirms major problems with the puniform estimation method. It also shows that the median, p-curve, and the average z-score method have the same slight positive bias. Only the Yuan-Maxwell corrected average power shows little systematic bias.

To examine biases in more detail, the following graphs plot bias as a function of true power. These plots can reveal that a method may have little average bias, but has different types of bias for different levels of power. The results show little evidence of systematic bias for the Yuan-Maxwell corrected average of power.

The following analyses examined bias separately for simulation with less or more than 50% true power. The results confirm that all methods except the Yuan-Maxwell correction underestimate power when true power is below 50%. In contrast, most estimation methods overestimate true power when true power is above 50%. The exception is puniform which still underestimated true power. More research needs to be done to understand the strange performance of puniform in this simulation. However, even if p-uniform could perform better, it is likely to be biased with skewed distributions of effect sizes because it assumes a fixed population effect size.

Conclusion

This investigation introduced and compared different methods to estimate true power for a set of studies. All estimation methods performed well when a set of studies had the same true power (exact replication studies), when effect sizes were homogenous and sample sizes varied, and when effect sizes were normally distributed and sample sizes were fixed. However, most estimation methods were systematically biased when the distribution of effect sizes was skewed. In this situation, most methods run into problems because the percentage of significant results is a function of the power of individual studies rather than the average power.

The results of these analyses suggest that the R-Index (Schimmack, 2014) can be improved by simply averaging power and then applying the Yuan-Maxwell correction. However, it is important to realize that the median method tends to overestimate power when power is greater than 50%. This makes it even more difficult for the R-Index to produce an estimate of low power when power is actually high. The next step in the investigation of observed power is to examine how different methods perform in unrepresentative (biased) sets of studies. In this case, the percentage of significant results is highly misleading. For example, Sterling et al. (1995) found percentages of 95% power, which would suggest that studies had 95% power. However, publication bias and questionable research practices create a bias in the sample of studies that are being published in journals. The question is whether other observed power estimates can reveal bias and can produce accurate estimates of the true power in a set of studies.