Papers › Power Calculations for Replication Studies

Power Calculations for Replication Studies

22 Apr 2020arXiv:2004.10814links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Charlotte Micheloud, Leonhard Held

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

The reproducibility crisis has led to an increasing number of replication studies being conducted. Sample sizes for replication studies are often calculated using conditional power based on the effect estimate from the original study. However, this approach is not well suited as it ignores the uncertainty of the original result. Bayesian methods are used in clinical trials to incorporate prior information into power calculations. We propose to adapt this methodology to the replication framework and promote the use of predictive instead of conditional power in the design of replication studies. Moreover, we describe how extensions of the methodology to sequential clinical trials can be tailored to replication studies. Conditional and predictive power calculated at an interim analysis are compared and we argue that predictive power is a useful tool to decide whether to stop a replication study prematurely. A recent project on the replicability of social sciences is used to illustrate the properties of the different methods.

PaperPDFCode

Code

SamCH93/ReplicationSuccess mentioned on GitHub report
cran/ReplicationSuccess mentioned on GitHub report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections